Other Running Out of Base Path

[TheLacinStation]

Since the notorious IFF post generated so much enthusiasm and discussion, how about this. Am I missing something here, or did Ichiro go way more than 3 feet outside the established base path.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...-slide-puts-yankees-board-023231262--mlb.html

 

[dychen]

I think it's the correct call, he doesn't go 3ft out to avoid the first tag. He just runs past home plate. Weiters should've just waited for him to come back to the plate instead of reaching to tag him out. Once he gets past home plate there is no basepath for him.

 

[BretMan]

Once he gets past home plate there is no basepath for him.

The second tag attempt would establish the runner's second basepath.

On the second tag try, Ichiro was diving right at the plate, so he definitely wasn't out of the basepath on that one. But it would still be a possible call after he had passed the plate. His new basepath would be from whever he wound up, straight to the plate as the tag attempt is being made.

 

[irishmafia]

I think it's the correct call, he doesn't go 3ft out to avoid the first tag. He just runs past home plate. Weiters should've just waited for him to come back to the plate instead of reaching to tag him out. Once he gets past home plate there is no basepath for him.

I'm one of the few umpires who disagree based on the definition of base path.

When the catcher begins to move and make a tag, the runner is basically at the corner of the grass where the plate-area cut-out begins. By definition, the base path is now established as a direct line from the runner to the base to which the runner is attempting to advance. If you take a second to look at it, that line runs through the front of the BB.

If the runner finds a way to continue toward the plate and get around the catcher, no problem. However, to avoid the tag, the runner went airborne and landed behind the 6' long BB, continued to behind the CB and then made his next attempt to the plate. That puts the runner more than 8' away from the plate.

 

[TheLacinStation]

I'm one of the few umpires who disagree based on the definition of base path.

When the catcher begins to move and make a tag, the runner is basically at the corner of the grass where the plate-area cut-out begins. By definition, the base path is now established as a direct line from the runner to the base to which the runner is attempting to advance. If you take a second to look at it, that line runs through the front of the BB.

If the runner finds a way to continue toward the plate and get around the catcher, no problem. However, to avoid the tag, the runner went airborne and landed behind the 6' long BB, continued to behind the CB and then made his next attempt to the plate. That puts the runner more than 8' away from the plate.

That's about what I was thinking. A direct line from where he was (when the tag attempt was made) and home plate certainly came nowhere near the back of the catcher's box.

 

[Gulf Coast Blue]

I'm one of the few umpires who disagree based on the definition of base path.

When the catcher begins to move and make a tag, the runner is basically at the corner of the grass where the plate-area cut-out begins. By definition, the base path is now established as a direct line from the runner to the base to which the runner is attempting to advance. If you take a second to look at it, that line runs through the front of the BB.

If the runner finds a way to continue toward the plate and get around the catcher, no problem. However, to avoid the tag, the runner went airborne and landed behind the 6' long BB, continued to behind the CB and then made his next attempt to the plate. That puts the runner more than 8' away from the plate.

I know that I agreed and then disagreed with you on another board... (but after watching the play about a million times now).... what happened on this particular play was that Ichiro could not just completely stop his momentum that took him away from the plate.....but it was after the tag was attempted.

My point being that this is along the lines of a baserunner interfering with a throw.....we cannot expect them to go poof......just like we cannot expect a baserunner in this situation to make a sharp angled turn towards the plate. It is just impossible.

I am not an Angel Hernandez fan.....but I thought his mechanics on the play were spot on.

Joel

 

[TheLacinStation]

I really just don't understand why these shenanigans are tolerated in the first place. Would the same thing be allowed if this play had occurred at 2nd base instead of home plate?

 

[irishmafia]

I know that I agreed and then disagreed with you on another board... (but after watching the play about a million times now).... what happened on this particular play was that Ichiro could not just completely stop his momentum that took him away from the plate.....but it was after the tag was attempted.

It was not. Look at some of the still photo's taken from the press box on the right side. Weiter's got the glove in front of him when Suzuki move to his right.

My point being that this is along the lines of a baserunner interfering with a throw.....we cannot expect them to go poof......just like we cannot expect a baserunner in this situation to make a sharp angled turn towards the plate. It is just impossible.

Don't buy that for a second. Trying to go around is fine. He wasn't attempting to reach a base when he couldn't go "poof", he was moving laterally at approximately a 45 deg. angle to the defined base path when he landed a minimum of 5' beyond the base path.

I am not an Angel Hernandez fan.....but I thought his mechanics on the play were spot on.

Joel

Completely agree with that.

 

[RDD15]

Gotta agree with Irish here. Had there been no throw, and had he not been avoiding the tag, ichiro would not have been moving laterally. His momentum was carrying him toward the plate until he began attempting to avoid the tag. Thus, when he wound up several feet wide of the basepath, I believe that he should have been called out.

 

[Sappho4]

I watched the play, read all of the comments, and re-watched the play. I'm gonna stick with my first instinct on it, but for a different reason than I originally thought...

I would make the same safe call that was made. I understand where you're coming from, irish, but what I see is the runner taking one step out of his intended base bath to avoid the tag, then overrunning the base (legal), and then taking a dive at the side of the plate when returning. I'm not going to call a runner out for one step out of his base path, I'm more looking for a deliberate 2+ steps before I call the out. I'm probably not calling a strict "by the book" 3' rule on this, but taking into consideration how the game is played. One step while still running forward is a part of the game and solid baserunning mechanics - in my opinion.

 

[irishmafia]

I watched the play, read all of the comments, and re-watched the play. I'm gonna stick with my first instinct on it, but for a different reason than I originally thought...

I would make the same safe call that was made. I understand where you're coming from, irish, but what I see is the runner taking one step out of his intended base bath to avoid the tag,

Number of steps irrelevant

then overrunning the base (legal),

Actually, not true

and then taking a dive at the side of the plate when returning. I'm not going to call a runner out for one step out of his base path, I'm more looking for a deliberate 2+ steps before I call the out. I'm probably not calling a strict "by the book" 3' rule on this, but taking into consideration how the game is played. One step while still running forward is a part of the game and solid baserunning mechanics - in my opinion.

You are using bull**** comments with no rule basis to try and justify a great effort. It was actually his third step AWAY from the glove that landed him behind the 6' long BB, which BTW, still isn't beyond the plate. But it doesn't make any difference if it was one step or twenty, 3' off a direct line from runner to base is 3', no other way to define it.

there is no argument Suzuki's moves were extremely athletic, just not within the the rules.

All these "pro" arguments are starting to resemble the "great play syndrome" that is a load of **** on it's own merit.

 

[Gulf Coast Blue]

I have probably watched this play over 200 times.......as noted earlier......my first instinct would be to call the runner out.....and that is all that really matters.

After dissecting it damn near frame by frame......I could go either way.........I know it is a cop out.....but still......

These guys make over $2,000 per game plus per-diem.....and the AA guys treat us like we make the same.

I might have called it different than Angel on the field......but he was the guy there.....so I have to go with what he called.

Joel

 

[PracticeSquad7]

I hate the Yankees, so he's out.

 

[Sappho4]

Number of steps irrelevant

Actually, not true

You are using bull**** comments with no rule basis to try and justify a great effort.

If I'm using bull**** comments with no rule basis, please quote rules to show me where this is not true. To my knowledge, there is no rule that makes a player automatically out for overrunning a base. They are simply liable to be put out. If I'm so full of BS, prove it.

 

[Gulf Coast Blue]

If I'm using bull**** comments with no rule basis, please quote rules to show me where this is not true. To my knowledge, there is no rule that makes a player automatically out for overrunning a base. They are simply liable to be put out. If I'm so full of BS, prove it.

Show the rule that proves you right!!!!

Joel

 

[Fin09]

I hate the Yankees, so he's out.

Ding ding! Winner!

 

[irishmafia]

If I'm using bull**** comments with no rule basis, please quote rules to show me where this is not true. To my knowledge, there is no rule that makes a player automatically out for overrunning a base. They are simply liable to be put out. If I'm so full of BS, prove it.

No one said anything about an automatic out, so there is you BS confirmation.

"overunning" is a term using in the rules that is specific to going past 1st base without liability to be put out under specific circumstances. This allowance is not available at any other base. Doing so at any other base is simply running the bases, not "overrunning" anything.

At the plate, once you past it, you are no longer a runner, therefore you are not over anythinging

 

[RDD15]

If I'm using bull**** comments with no rule basis, please quote rules to show me where this is not true. To my knowledge, there is no rule that makes a player automatically out for overrunning a base. They are simply liable to be put out. If I'm so full of BS, prove it.

Even better than quoting the rulebook, we can quote you and your own admission......

I'm probably not calling a strict "by the book" 3' rule on this, but taking into consideration how the game is played. One step while still running forward is a part of the game and solid baserunning mechanics - in my opinion.

So, you admit that you are basing the rule on "my opinion" and not "by the book". That is the exact definition of "bull**** comments with no rule basis", is it not?

 

[Sappho4]

You guys must have a lot of fun irritating players in the games you call and getting to eject people. How about this for "by the book"...

Judgment: Can be best described in the saying "umpiring judgment is mainly experience, salted with cool headed common sense." [...] The players will relax and trust the good judgment of the umpire if the call makes sense. Calls that don't make sense put players on edge and are cause for question. To develop good judgment umpires should take time to learn the common sense application of the rules during game situations.

Taken from the ASA Umpire Manual, page 223, definition of Judgment (emphasis added).

We don't have the ability to have a tape measure on the field and instant replay to make a call. I absolutely take into consideration the way the game is played and normal mechanics. So, yes, I feel completely comfortable saying that I am not going to call a runner out for taking one semi-side step while still running toward the plate.

 

[irishmafia]

You guys must have a lot of fun irritating players in the games you call and getting to eject people. How about this for "by the book"...

Judgment: Can be best described in the saying "umpiring judgment is mainly experience, salted with cool headed common sense." [...] The players will relax and trust the good judgment of the umpire if the call makes sense. Calls that don't make sense put players on edge and are cause for question. To develop good judgment umpires should take time to learn the common sense application of the rules during game situations.

Taken from the ASA Umpire Manual, page 223, definition of Judgment (emphasis added).

We don't have the ability to have a tape measure on the field and instant replay to make a call. I absolutely take into consideration the way the game is played and normal mechanics. So, yes, I feel completely comfortable saying that I am not going to call a runner out for taking one semi-side step while still running toward the plate.

Uh...the lines of specific length were already on the field and "common sense" is that you don't **** the catcher's effort because the runner makes an acrobatic move. And if all you saw was one "semi-side" whatever in the **** that is, step, you need to watch the rest of the play because you missed the best part where the runner was more than 6' out of the base path.

Then again, this was a no brainer to an intelligent human being, lines or not. I love guys who try to justify **** around a rule to reach their pre-determined conclusion. Just like the pretenders who invoke the "spirit" or the game or "fairness" to a team or a player. What about the other players who are paying you just as much to call the rules, not be "fair" or act like they are experts on the 'spirit" of the rule.

Are there rules where "spirit" or "common sense" should be considered during enforcement? Sure, and many, if not most involve game control or preventive umpiring, not ignoring given rules without direction or authority.

And to add, the citation was about developing good judgment. Judgment does not include ignoring rules. As a player, I wanted to walk on the field knowing the umpire is going to call the rules without bias, not determining a call based on what s/he thinks is fair.

 

[Gulf Coast Blue]

You guys must have a lot of fun irritating players in the games you call and getting to eject people. How about this for "by the book"...

Judgment: Can be best described in the saying "umpiring judgment is mainly experience, salted with cool headed common sense." [...] The players will relax and trust the good judgment of the umpire if the call makes sense. Calls that don't make sense put players on edge and are cause for question. To develop good judgment umpires should take time to learn the common sense application of the rules during game situations.

Taken from the ASA Umpire Manual, page 223, definition of Judgment (emphasis added).

We don't have the ability to have a tape measure on the field and instant replay to make a call. I absolutely take into consideration the way the game is played and normal mechanics. So, yes, I feel completely comfortable saying that I am not going to call a runner out for taking one semi-side step while still running toward the plate.

Is 34 years long enough to learn common sense? That is how long I have umpired..........

I disagreed with an umpire on this thread that I have been acquainted with for over fifteen years.

If it were he or I making that same call in a championship game......I would want it to be him.......but if it were me.....I would make my call.....and I would think that he would back me up. As I would him.....as we would be over 100' away from the others call.

And BTW.....we don't eject people......they eject themselves.

Joel

 

[EsqUmp]

While tradition may rule otherwise, MLB does not define a basepath. It says that the runner is out when he goes more than three feet out of a direct line between two bases (not his current position and the base) in an attempt to avoid a tag.

 

[Gulf Coast Blue]

While tradition may rule otherwise, MLB does not define a basepath. It says that the runner is out when he goes more than three feet out of a direct line between two bases (not his current position and the base) in an attempt to avoid a tag.

Whose post are you replying to. Shoot me your email address and I will give you a couple of documents that do define what MLB wants called.

Joel

 

[irishmafia]

While tradition may rule otherwise, MLB does not define a basepath. It says that the runner is out when he goes more than three feet out of a direct line between two bases (not his current position and the base) in an attempt to avoid a tag.

MLB Official Rules 7.08, Page 64

7.08 Any runner is out when—
(a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely; or

(my emphasis)

Clarification: 7.08 was changed for the 2012 season to include the term "base path" to replace "base line"

 

[Sappho4]

Wow. This is probably the most disappointing post I've been a part of on this website. Rather than having an actual discussion on the play, which I believe was the original posters intention, I'm being attacked from behind a computer screen for disagreeing.

What I'm calling a semi-side step (was there a point in saying "whatever in the **** that is" besides being a jerk?) is Ichiro's first reaction when the catcher gets the ball. I included "semi" because he didn't take a full step toward the dugout which that might imply otherwise, he took a less than 45-degree step from his current path and then moved his body around the tag attempt while continuing on that line.

If I'm reading through all of your cursing and attacking properly, I think the part of the play we're disagreeing most on is after this though. When he runs past (I'll avoid the term overruns since that seemed to p iss you off) the plate you are saying he is outside of the defined baseline and should then be declared out. While I do see where you're making that determination, I still disagree with it. The video isn't showing up right now (not sure if it's my computer or was removed by the site), but if I'm remembering properly, I believe Ichiro stopped as quickly as his momentum would allow after avoiding the tag and immediately attempted to return to the plate. This is what I'm determining as "overruning" the base, rather than out of the base line.

Personally, I RESPECTFULLY disagree with your interpretation. (Too bad the same respect can't be shown both ways.) If we were on the field together, I'd full heartedly support your call though, as I do understand it. Feel free to get in your last word, but I'm done posting on this topic. It's definitely the most disappointing rule "discussion" that I've had on this site.

 

[EsqUmp]

MLB Official Rules 7.08, Page 64

7.08 Any runner is out when—
(a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely; or

(my emphasis)

Clarification: 7.08 was changed for the 2012 season to include the term "base path" to replace "base line"

Good to know. I just picked up an older book I had on my table.

 

[irishmafia]

Wow. This is probably the most disappointing post I've been a part of on this website. Rather than having an actual discussion on the play, which I believe was the original posters intention, I'm being attacked from behind a computer screen for disagreeing.

Not true. It is your attempt to justify ignoring a rule violation with some "common sense" argument when your citation is about the development of good judgment, not justification to not enforce black & white rules.

What I'm calling a semi-side step (was there a point in saying "whatever in the **** that is" besides being a jerk?) is Ichiro's first reaction when the catcher gets the ball. I included "semi" because he didn't take a full step toward the dugout which that might imply otherwise, he took a less than 45-degree step from his current path and then moved his body around the tag attempt while continuing on that line.

By rule, that "line" must be from where the runner was at the timer the catcher started the tag attempt which was about the corner of the grass where the plate cutout begins, directly to the plate. This line would run through the front corner of the RHBB. The first step off the grass was to the right (assume that is your "semi-side step") and then as the catcher was still lunging for a tag, ended up beyond the back of the RHBB. The fact that when he went "straight" to the back of the BB is not the straight line defined as the base path.

If I'm reading through all of your cursing and attacking properly, I think the part of the play we're disagreeing most on is after this though. When he runs past (I'll avoid the term overruns since that seemed to p iss you off) the plate you are saying he is outside of the defined baseline and should then be declared out. While I do see where you're making that determination, I still disagree with it. The video isn't showing up right now (not sure if it's my computer or was removed by the site),

MLB claimed a copyright infringement and had it pulled. Its still out there on some foreign sites.

but if I'm remembering properly, I believe Ichiro stopped as quickly as his momentum would allow after avoiding the tag and immediately attempted to return to the plate. This is what I'm determining as "overruning" the base, rather than out of the base line.

That's all nice, but irrelevant to the rule

Personally, I RESPECTFULLY disagree with your interpretation. (Too bad the same respect can't be shown both ways.) If we were on the field together, I'd full heartedly support your call though, as I do understand it. Feel free to get in your last word, but I'm done posting on this topic. It's definitely the most disappointing rule "discussion" that I've had on this site.

You need to get over yourself. Its not an interpretation, it is the application of the rule as written. I don't understand the need to justify a call that wasn't made that could have been. Do you honestly believe there would have been an argument if the umpire did rule Suzuki out of the base path?

BTW, a word is a word is a word and carries no more power than you wish to provide it. IOW, don't believe in profanity.

 

[PracticeSquad7]

I'm still going to default to the fact I hate the Yankmees.. so he was out.

 

[EsqUmp]

No one said anything about an automatic out, so there is you BS confirmation.

"overunning" is a term using in the rules that is specific to going past 1st base without liability to be put out under specific circumstances. This allowance is not available at any other base. Doing so at any other base is simply running the bases, not "overrunning" anything.

At the plate, once you past it, you are no longer a runner, therefore you are not over anythinging

Actually, the rule book says that the runner may overrun 1st base without liability to be put out. That implies that you can, in fact, overrun other bases, but WITH liability to be put out. In this case, he was not yet a retired runner.

Another difference I see when the play isn't looked at as multiple plays. The initial tag/play ended when the catcher fell to the ground with his mitt. A secondary play occurred when he then went after Ichiro. That is because when the catcher hit the ground with his glove, he was no longer in a position to execute an out. It is at that moment that Ichiro would have to be out of the baseline. I don't have an issue with someone saying that he was or was not at this point. That's a matter of judgment, not interpretation. I would have difficulty calling a runner out who is going back to a base and getting closer to the defender than he was initially. I am not going to reward poor defensive play (not just staying at the plate to apply a tag).

If you say that a runner is no longer a runner when he passes the plate, how do you call a RUNNER out for moving more than 3 feet from the tag? I think you should reconsider whether the player still has "runner" status.

 

[vipvanilla]

Wow, this was a fun read...

The only thing that matters now is that my Tigers are gonna beat down the Yankees!