Bases loaded walk

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Can you name another instance? I believe tom is correct.

But let me suggest this

Is not a baserunner permitted to set their own basepath?

What if you have the runner taking a couple steps past home to pick up a discarded bat and then turn to touch the plate?

Not saying it is the smartest move in the world, but there certainly isn't anything wrong with it, either. Point is, where are you drawing the line?

Key word in your post. PASSED. Under Fed rules when she has PASSED a base she is said to have touched the base. For a runner coming from 3b home, there is a very clear line as to what past the base is. It is the first base line, which is nicely drawn on the field of play for everyone to see.

If the runner stays over toward the 3b dug out to pick up a bat then touches home we have a different situation because she has not passed home plate yet and at this point she is still allowed to set her own base path as no play can legally be made on her since she is getting an awarded base.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Key word in your post. PASSED. Under Fed rules when she has PASSED a base she is said to have touched the base. For a runner coming from 3b home, there is a very clear line as to what past the base is. It is the first base line, which is nicely drawn on the field of play for everyone to see.

If the runner stays over toward the 3b dug out to pick up a bat then touches home we have a different situation because she has not passed home plate yet and at this point she is still allowed to set her own base path as no play can legally be made on her since she is getting an awarded base.

So, your position is you would rule differently based on which dugout her team may be in when she hasn't touched home nor entered dead ball territory? After all, if her team is in the third base dugout, she might never have "passed" the base, while missing it by even MORE than the OP.

Do you not see how that distinction would treat the teams on the field differently for doing the exact same thing? Do you think that would be the intent of any rule or approved ruling?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Key word in your post. PASSED. Under Fed rules when she has PASSED a base she is said to have touched the base. For a runner coming from 3b home, there is a very clear line as to what past the base is. It is the first base line, which is nicely drawn on the field of play for everyone to see.

If the runner stays over toward the 3b dug out to pick up a bat then touches home we have a different situation because she has not passed home plate yet and at this point she is still allowed to set her own base path as no play can legally be made on her since she is getting an awarded base.

Using this logic, a runner who shortcuts the base cannot be considered as having touched is because they never passed it.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Using this logic, a runner who shortcuts the base cannot be considered as having touched is because they never passed it.

When do you consider a runner to have passed the base? You need to be able to answer that question to be able to rule on appeals for a missed base.

There is no difference between a runner who misses a base by stepping with one foot on either side of the base, and running 10 feet inside of the base, short cutting the infield. As soon as they pass the base, they are subject to appeal for missing the base. Home plate is no different. As soon as they pass home plate they are subject to appeal for missing the plate.

The way the rules are written, yes the umpire needs to rule on the team on the third base side different from the first base side. Given the way the rules regarding running awarded bases, making plays on an runner awarded a base, and appeals are written, the runner for a team in the third base dug out would need to do something else to be ruled out on appeal, such as enter dead ball territory, or not have touched the base before the next pitch.

One other thing to consider, the umpire can rule the play dead under casebook play 8-3-11 situation c, when the runner acts in a manner not consistent with fair play. If the runner is intentionally not touching home plate, the umpire can declare the ball dead, require the runner to touch home plate, and issue a warning for unsportsmanlike behavior.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

One other thing to consider, the umpire can rule the play dead under casebook play 8-3-11 situation c, when the runner acts in a manner not consistent with fair play. If the runner is intentionally not touching home plate, the umpire can declare the ball dead, require the runner to touch home plate, and issue a warning for unsportsmanlike behavior.

Oh, come on. Back to earth, please.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Oh, come on. Back to earth, please.

There is a reason the casebook play is in the casebook. Somewhere a team tried gaining an advantage by having a player do what is in the casebook play.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

There is a reason the casebook play is in the casebook. Somewhere a team tried gaining an advantage by having a player do what is in the casebook play.

And where in any of the original play do you ascertain the runner is intentionally not touching the plate?