 |
| Diaz attempts to explain obstruction and the definition of "base path" to a thoroughly confused Padres team. |
This is Laz Diaz (63)'s first ejection of 2013.
Laz Diaz now has 4 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 4).
Crew Chief Mike Winters now has 6 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (5 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 6).
*This is 7.06(a) [Type A] obstruction as a play was being made on an obstructed runner. Pursuant to Rule 2.00 [OBS], obstruction "is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner." The "base path" rule (7.08(a)(1)) does not apply here as Tanaka did not deviate greater than three feet away from his base path to avoid being tagged, as Headley did not attempt a tag prior to releasing the ball. Pursuant to 7.08(a)(1): "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." With no tag attempt, there can be no violation of Rule 7.08(a)(1) and no out of the base path call. There is no such thing as an "out of the baseline call." R2 was properly awarded third base.
This is the 94th ejection of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 44th Manager ejection of 2013.
This the Padres' 3rd ejection of 2013, 4th in the NL West (LAD 8; ARI 7; SF 4; SD 3; COL 2).
This is Bud Black's 2nd ejection of 2013 and first since June 5, 2013 (Tim Timmons; QOC = N).
This is Laz Diaz's first ejection since July 23, 2012 (Fredi Gonzalez; QOC = N).
Wrap: San Francisco Giants vs. San Diego Padres, 7/12/13
Video: After Headley runs over Tanaka, resulting in an obstruction call, Black argues and is tossed (SD)
Video: In his post-game presser, Black says "The runner on the grass seemed awkward to me" (3:30)
34 comments :
I want to punch everyone who brings up the words interference and base path while talking about this play.
That right there is the reason they changed the wording in the rule book from "base line" to "base path." Unfortunately, people involved from the playing side of things have trouble grasping the concept that things such as grass/dirt line don't mean anything when it comes to the rules. Eg. Infield fly
Bud Black said "He was 5 feet on the grass." He was just barely on the grass. Not like that makes a difference anyway. Why don't all these tv networks hire former umpires to explain these things on tv. Probably because they wouldn't get to bash the umpires as much and that's bad for tv.
That grass line is pretty close to the baseline.
As always, MLB.com screws up the explanation of the play.
Can the umpires really say "basepath that the runner was headed to" in this case? Really? He was moving toward FIRST BASE! This one's laughable.
But the Padres should be wrong in this case simply for their UGLY uniforms!
'Right' call, but unfortunate that umpire cannot insert discretion here. There's no way that Tanaka would have reached third base safely.
That is a great call. The runner ran on the grass for 40 feet before being tagged. He established his base path within 2-3 step of his initial retreat to 2nd base. Easy call...base path argument is lame.
Good idea. Then, whenever a run down starts, someone can just run into the runner so the umpire can call them out because they are never going to make it back safely.
Here is an idea. They are professional baseball players. How about they not screw up the run down.
Wow. I'm not sure how a fielder "screws up a run down" running at a 30* angle from the two bases the rundown is between..
I guess you also get mad at umpires when they screw up too since they're "professional umpires" afterall...
You have got to be kidding me? He did not deviate more than 3 feet from the path? Complete bs, you completely missed the rule btw.
7.08 Any runner is out when-
(a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from a direct line between bases to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball; or
Also, he was running to AVOID BEING TAGGED.
What's your point?
there is not such thing as "establishing a base path", it is 3 ft outside a direct line between bases
when a player is in a pickle like this, he is avoiding being tagged...which means the base path rule is APPLICABLE, the moment when he leaves 3 feet outside a direct line between the bases, he should be out. Blown call.
it makes a difference if being on the grass is more than 3 feet outside the base path, which it was...
Can someone get Aaron an interpretation book? Please?
This claim is false. Your quotation of Rule 7.08(a)(1) is erroneous. Prior to 2013, Rule 7.08(a)(1) read, in part, "A runner’'s baseline is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely." In 2013, the phrase was modified to read "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."
Professional baseball has never defined a base path as a "direct line between bases."
Go home Aaron, you're drunk. Seriously, making up rules? That's just weak and pathetic. The rule has always said "runner to the base" NOT direct line between bases. That's the definition of baseline which brings me to the myth of "out of the baseline."
There is no such thing as out of the baseline! It's out of the base path! There's a difference which you evidence don't know or you wouldn't have posted a made up rule here. LOOK IT UP!
It appears you don't understand the definition of what a runner's base line is. It has nothing to do with the straight line between the two bases. Look it up.
This would be a great rule reference if you quoted it properly. Here's what it actually says:
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;
You're trolling, right?
How many times does the rule have to be explained to you for you to stop getting it wrong?
Three feet outside to avoid a tag. He didn't move to avoid the tag, he got run over. Not to mention...poor fielding. Threw too late, high soft toss while still running---he should have charged the runner at that point instead of passing the ball again.
Did he finally give up? Unless he's giving in, I hope he's not an ump!
My point is that the grass line is very close to the dirt so when the coach, players, announcers are arguing that the runner was in the grass....that is not a valid argument for this play. The runner was in his line he had established well before the rundown - he did not deviate more than 3 feet from that path when he made his turn back to third and made contact with the fielder who was in his way. I agree with the call on the field as obstruction.
Which he did run further than 3ft...do you not get that Headley was attempting to make a tag on the runner, which then established his baseball, and then he ran 3ft outside that onto. It's pretty simple.
Semantics are a warm fuzzy blanket for you I'm guessing. I apologize for using the incorrect term, amend my original statement with path instead of line. Even so, you can clearly see Headley holding the ball out and attempting to make a tag on the runner before he throws it, the runner is on the dirt and then runs at least 3 ft into the grass, he is out.
You are right, I had an older definition, I still think he should of been called out because I don't agree with the statement that Headley never attempted a tag. I am looking for a specific definition of what constitutes a tag vs no tag but I would say running after a player with the ball out in front of you and getting as close as headley did would constitute a tag.
thank you ann, have fun playing softball...
I disagree that Headley was not trying to attempt a tag, holding the ball out in front of you and running at a player and getting as close as he did before he threw it says tag to me.
A tag is "the action of a fielder in touching a base with his body while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove; or touching a runner with the ball, or with his hand or glove holding the ball, while holding the ball securely and firmly in his hand or glove" (Rule 2.00 [TAG]). So we can conclude that a tag attempt is an attempt to perform the above action.
What is an attempt?
We see the word "attempt" in several places in the rules book. It is associated with a swinging strike (attempt to strike the pitch), it appears with interference (interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted or thrown ball or spectator interference with outfielder attempting to catch a fly ball) and, most notably, in the section about appeals and protests (must occur before the next pitch, play or attempted play).
The interpretation for "attempted play" states that a fake to a base (e.g., a fake pickoff) is not an attempted play, but an actual throw or movement of the glove to try and touch the runner is (Rule 7.10). Simply running after a runner with the ball is not an attempt because in order to effect a tag, the glove (or hand) must physically be moved into a position where it can touch the baserunner, generally the arm will be moved away from the body for a more efficient tag.
Attempt is separate and distinct from intend or effort. For instance, the fielder intends to retire the runner, but through his actions, has not made a bone-fide attempt to do so. He has shown effort to do so, but still has not made an attempt.
I disagree that a tag attempt can soley be described as when a player is touching a base, that is surely and incomplete description as it does not cover situations such as a run down.
I would also suggest that Headley clearly moved his arm with the ball in hand away from his body, holding it out in front of him. He got close enough that a mere second passed when he collided with the runner.
I have officiated sporting events before and they tell us all the time, use common sense. I think this is an issue of common sense vs letter of the law.
If you look where the player is in relation to 2nd base its ridiculous, its common sense that he was avoid being tagged and left his established baseline.
3 feet of where he started on the baseline he started in grass he didn't got out of three foot line
wrong he got there safely.
Post a Comment