B/R Retreats Towards Home Playe
 

R2. Batter bunts. F3 fields bunt. Batter stops before being tagged. She then starts backpedaling to avoid being tagged.

Legal?

No. ASA 8-2-H. NFHS 8-2-8.

12.2.11 for NCAA

Batter stops before being tagged. -- Legal

backpedaling to avoid being tagged. -- INT

:D Last year I called "TIME, That's interference!" I called the batter-runner out and put everyone back to the base they were on.

I later found out that I should have made them return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.:(

Baseball?

Legal in baseball. Only out if you retreat all the way to the plate.

I was referring to "TIME" instead of "DEAD BALL"! :)

IIRC this was called either last year or the year before in the CWS. The batter-runner was trying to gain extra time for the runners advancing, and took a step back. The umpire called it correctly, ruling her out and moving everyone back to the base occupied at the time she took the step backwards towards the plate to avoid the tag.

Under NCAA Rules, the runners are moved back to the base occupied at the time of the pitch. (12.2.11 Effect) In the case of a run-and-bunt, the runner has quite possibly reached the next base at the time of the step backwards. I believe this ruling is unique to NCAA.

:D This is how I ruled. Even though I no longer do college softball, I will sometimes enforce their rules for ASA or high school. Lots of times my parner or the coach will inform me that I am applying the wrong rule fi they know the difference.:eek:

Which is how it should be, and the other sanctioning bodies should follow suit. After all, the reason a BR would do this is to delay a play on her to let other runners advance. If one or more of those runners do make it to their next base(s) before the BR takes that step back, then the penalty doesn't really have the right effect.

I never really understood why this action is illegal in the first place. In every other place on the field, the runner can choose whatever base path she wants... forward, backward, wide arcs, whatever.

I do understand that she cannot retreat to home as a "base", but why is it illegal to retreat as part of any other base-running strategy or purpose?

If the BR action does not help the runner to reach a base ( to their next base(s) before the BR takes that step ); then why should the runner be penalized back to an earlier base?

Ummm, you know what? I didn't even think of it that way.

You're right, the NCAA has it all wrong. :o:p

Between home and 1B there is no safe place for BR to retreat to. She can't go back and stand on home plate to avoid being put out. :D

Nor can she retreat to safe haven at 1B (if forced), but there's no rule preventing her from stepping back from a tag between 1st & 2nd, even if forced.

While I generally agree this isn't a good rule, and it sure as hell isn't interference (in my opinion) to simply delay an apparent out for a strategic advantage, there is a key difference between these cases. It isn't EVER possible for a BR to be safe back at home; but it IS possible a foolish defense can misplay a retreat to 1st by removing the force.

Hmmm... I thought I said that... ;)

A valid base-running move is for a runner between 1B and 2B to attempt to get caught between bases to attract the defense and allow a runner from 3B to score. She has no intent to advance or retreat to any base. It is basically a sacrifice. Why is the same maneuver illegal between home and 1B?

Which is why, in baseball, a BR who retreats (legally, I might add) back toward home to avoid the tag is ruled out when he reaches the plate.

I also agree with others that I find no logical basis for ruling Interference on this play. For whatever reason, softball sanctioning bodies feel this situation is a special case that doesn't apply between any other bases. Fine. But rather than ruling it Interference, why not just rule it similar to a three-foot violation, call the BR out, and leave the ball Live to make plays on other runners? If this is really Interference, then all similar acts (e.g., the aforementioned three-foot violation) should be treated as Interference as well.

As we all know, the ASA rulebook spawned all the others. While I'm old enough to have been there, I know it was before I was involved in the rules process; Mike, can you research your collection to see when this rule was added as interference? It would have to be before the NCAA rulebook separated, and probably before there was an NFHS rulebook.

As is prevalent (more so in NCAA today, with a small committee, and highly influential coaches; not so easy in the ASA 300+ voting member council) in the rules process, there can often be a bad rule or interpretation that is championed by someone with enough juice to make it a rule. Often these are changed back later, when the body realizes it is a bad rule; sometimes, it just stays with lack of inertia. This one clearly has existed long enough that no one has challenged it as being illogical.

Some examples of bad rule later changed? The one year (or was it two?) ASA called it interference if a retired batter drew a throw from the catcher on a D3K when not a batter-runner. The several years NCAA made it an illegal pitch if the pitcher's first swing up broke a 90 degree plane over her head.

Now, we could start a whole new thread on what we consider bad rules that still exist. For me:
1) Squaring to bunt without attempting to hit the ball is an attempt to hit the ball if you don't pull back. (NCAA & NFHS)
1a) The resulting spawned belief that pulling back AFTER attempting to contact the ball is NOT an attempt to bunt. (NCAA & NFHS)
2) Batters letting balls dribble into their foot and getting an awarded base. (NCAA & NFHS)
2a) The resulting "taking it for the team" attitude that has injured so many players, and allows batters to take away the inside (and our slot).
3) Steel cleats at any recreational level; yep, include that recreational high school, too, IMO. (ASA & NFHS)
3a) The resulting ACL, MCL, MDL, etc. injuries when the cleat bites, and the female knee ligaments can't handle it.

All of the above, IMO, are far worse for the game than calling the BR stepping back to avoid a tag interference. But, that's just me.

And in every other place on the field, there is the possibility that the runner can be safe by retreating to a base. Not even a remote possibility with a BR

See above.

See, the problem lies with the point that the coaches don't know how to beat this rule. I do.

Amen, Brother. Give that man a beer.