Any touching bases

[jonsey]

Isnt the easiest thing to get national to rule on something. Have to run through chain of command to get it to the national level and depends completely on their decision on if it goes up the chain or not. About 3 months ago I posted an obstruction play on a large umpire forum and got over a thousand responses, many of them also UIC's with completely opposite rulings. I contacted both the state USA uic and the state NFHS rules interpreter to ask to have the play kicked up the chain to national for rulings. Both responded with their rulings, which by the way were completely opposite of each other, but as yet I have seen nothing about the play being sent on to national for a ruling.

I seem to remember a few years ago there was an option on the USA rules and clarifications page where you could submit questions for possible review in future editions, but when I looked recently there no longer appears to be that option.

I agree 100%, it really gets frustrating in trying to find the CORRECT ANSWER I would bet if I sent the same scenario to the 1/2 dozen listed UIC's on their web page that I would get different answers

 

[NCASAUmp]

Well, it's not terribly surprising, in all honesty. Some sports are more cut-and-dry on what is or isn't allowed, like volleyball. Was the ball in? Was the back row attacker's foot over the line?

Softball, on the other hand, is a much more dynamic sport that has evolved over time, and each person in charge will have his/her own take on whether a particular act is considered "fair play." Just consider the differences between associations on what's considered an "intentionally dropped ball," and you'll see what I mean.

I'll see if we can run this one up the flagpole, but keep in mind that if I do get an answer, it will only be for USA Softball. NSA may have a different perspective, as may USSSA.

 

[NCASAUmp]

All right, guys, I ran it up the flagpole, and it arrived on the desk of a member of the National Staff within USA Softball (ASA). The answer coming back down my way is that the runner does not have to retouch the base.

The explanation we were given is this. The runner started off in possession of second base. He owns it. And he is not required to run in any particular direction from second base, he's only required to A) not interfere and B) not get hit while off the base. This isn't the case of a runner attempting to retreat to first base, which is where the rule regarding touching the bases in a particular order comes into play.

So no, he does not have to retouch.

 

[Comp]

Which doesnt exactly jive with the case play I posted either. If the runner "owns" the base after touching it, then why would the case play indicate the runner must retouch the base before advancing because they stepped over the top of it while returning?

 

[AH23]

That's because in your case play the runner was advancing (started on 1B) and returning, then advancing again. In this play, runner started on 2B and was avoiding the batted ball.

 

[NCASAUmp]

Exactly, and that's the big difference here. In your scenario, the baserunner must touch the base as part of running the bases in reverse order. That is not what's happening here in the OP.

 

[Joker]

Which doesnt exactly jive with the case play I posted either. If the runner "owns" the base after touching it, then why would the case play indicate the runner must retouch the base before advancing because they stepped over the top of it while returning?

your case, runner started on 1st not 2nd

 

[AH23]

We are fortunate to have Joker here to point out the **** we haven't already pointed out.

 

[Sully]

All right, guys, I ran it up the flagpole, and it arrived on the desk of a member of the National Staff within USA Softball (ASA). The answer coming back down my way is that the runner does not have to retouch the base.

The explanation we were given is this. The runner started off in possession of second base. He owns it. And he is not required to run in any particular direction from second base, he's only required to A) not interfere and B) not get hit while off the base. This isn't the case of a runner attempting to retreat to first base, which is where the rule regarding touching the bases in a particular order comes into play.

So no, he does not have to retouch.

Thanks. While I appreciate the back and forth and seeing people's points and their reasoning on a rules question, it is always good to have what USA Softball says is the correct interpretation on something not clearly spelled out in the rules.

 

[Joker]

Because the ball was not caught in this situation. Do you not understand how they are different?

Assuming he touched 1st on the way to 2nd, he has touched the bases in legal order. He has already established possession of 2nd base. He is not running the bases backwards to deceive the defense or to make a travesty of the game.

The rules don't prohibit it so there is no rule to cite.

I called this correctly awhile ago. so good thing I was here

 

[RNRPLZ]

I know if you advance past a base and then need to return to the previous base as on a caught fly ball that you must re-touch the base that you passed. This happened the other day, runner on 2nd and the batter hits a line drive up the middle that almost took the runners head off, the runner jumped back off the bag and stumbled backward toward 1st base, when he regained his balance he ran just in front of 2nd base to 3rd and didn't re-touch 2nd, should he have had to re-touch 2nd befoe going to 3rd? and if so it would be an appeal play correct?

Nowhere does this situation dictate that the runner was attempting to retreat anywhere but out of the way of danger. No ruling no appeal granted.

 

[Joker]

glad you cleared that up

 

[jonsey]

I called this correctly awhile ago. so good thing I was here

lmao, Joker I hope your shoulde isn't sore, from patting yourself on it

 

[irishmafia]

All right, guys, I ran it up the flagpole, and it arrived on the desk of a member of the National Staff within USA Softball (ASA). The answer coming back down my way is that the runner does not have to retouch the base.

The explanation we were given is this. The runner started off in possession of second base. He owns it. And he is not required to run in any particular direction from second base, he's only required to A) not interfere and B) not get hit while off the base. This isn't the case of a runner attempting to retreat to first base, which is where the rule regarding touching the bases in a particular order comes into play.

So no, he does not have to retouch.

I have no problem with that ruling by your source (though I'm not a big fan )

My issue is that USA has rules which require a runner to perform in a manner that is not prescribed in the rules based on the sole ASSUMPTION that everyone should know what it is. Nor has there been an interpretation or case play addressing a possible violation and effect based upon the intention, or lack of, in why the runner moved one way or the other. The teachings have always been if the runner goes in one direction and reverses, all bases must be touched. The cause of the runner's action has not been addressed.

 

[Joker]

you're wrong, let it go

 

[FatBoy28]

I find myself agreeing with Joker more and more the older I get.
Can't decide if this means I should give up SBF or take up drinking.

 

[NCASAUmp]

Become an umpire. That'll be reason enough to drink.

See: my avatar.