Watching MLB with a Tivo I have confirmed something I’ve thought for decades. Namely that when turning the standard 2nd-to-1st double play, the baseman working second will often pull his foot off the bag before receiving the throw. So the runner coming to second should be called safe. Yet the umpires ignore this and call the runner out so long as the throw was caught before the runner got to the bag.
Yet for a play at first or third, whether as part of a double play or not, the umps are sticklers that the baseman’s foot be on the bag as (or after) he receives the throw to be credited with the force. As it should be.
Obviously at second there is more of a history of runners pasting the baseman on the way in. This goes back to the 1960s if not before.
Yet nowadays the covering baseman normally stands away from the bag and stretches his one foot back to the bag to make contact. The result is there’s room for the runner to slide without getting much tangled in the baseman, and a runner deviating from his path far enough to tackle the baseman would be (rightly) called out for a clear case of interference.
SO:
Am I correct in my perception that 10-15% of all double plays are muffed / cheated at second without the umpires calling it that way?
If so, how & when did it become normal / acceptable to umpire this way?
This has bugged be for years…but I think it might be changing, at least for the short term…
I’ve noticed this season that umpires seem to be calling things a lot more strictly at second base. I’ve seen a couple cases already where they’ve called a runner safe when the second baseman (or shortstop) had missed the bag in this scenario. Also, I’ve seen several calls where a runner attempting to steal or advance a base has been called safe because the fielder did not actually tag them, where in the past they would have been out because the throw obviously “beat the runner”.
I don’t know if this marks an overall shift in the way games will be called, or if this is just the “flavor of the month” for umpires, like the “we’re going to call the high strike like we’re supposed to” phase they went through for about half a season not too long ago.
This is a “rule” I totally do not understand. Sure, close plays at second base sometimes result in injury, but why is it the ump’s discretion not to cal the play correctly? If the second baseman (or ss) wants the out at second, he jumps to safety after touching the base while holding the ball. If he gets greedy and wants to try for the other out at first, he throws to first before leaving the bag, and if he gets nailed, then that’s his lookout.
The very nature of the play makes it likely that two people will approach the same space at the same time. If the umpires allow the fielder to miss the bag in order to avoid collisions, it removes the risk that is at the very heart of the play itself.
I understand that both the players and the fans are better off if our shortstops and second basemen and baserunners don’t get carted off the field with injuries, but i think this is something that should be regulated by the players’ own sense of acceptable risk, not by umpires failing to enforce the rules properly. As prr says, the players themselves can make the decision whether or not to go for two, depending upon how close the play is, and on how likely they are to make the transfer in time to get the out at first.
I should add that, if they did tighten up on this, i would also support a stricter rule regarding the runner sliding into second base. As it currently stands, i think runners are given far too much leeway in their efforts to disrupt the fielder making the transfer. I’ve seen runners throw their legs or body or arms well wide of the base in an attempt to take the fielder out. I think that an acceptable slide, in cases like this, should clearly be making an effort to get to the base before the throw. If the runner throws his legs or arms way out to the side of the base, the umpire should rule obstruction and award an out.
you are incorrect, but only because you are underestimating the number. The number of double plays that are technically not turned correctly is much higher than your guestimate. I don’t know what the actual number is, but this particular behavior has been going on for decades. Someone upthread mentioned being “in the general area”, and that basically holds true. It is interpreted differently by different umpires, but I don’t know of any umpire that is strict in calling the out at second base correctly.
I don’t know the when, but the why is supposedly to cut down on the injuries to the shortstop or second baseman who is taking the throw at second to throw to first to complete the double play. Runners can make the play hazardous, but to me, that’s part of the game and they should have never taken it out.
A shortstop or second baseman who learns the position learns to jump out of the way (either jumping up or to the side) to avoid the sliding runner. Aggressive runners come in to the bag sliding feet first, with their spikes high, aiming at the shin of the shortstop or second baseman (if they connect, it hurts pretty good!). If you slide feet first, you can also pop up and roll with a shoulder, taking out the shortstop or second baseman. If you do it right, the runner can impact damage on the defensive player without getting called out by the umpire. The umpire has the ability to call the runner for interference and call the double play if he thinks the runner went out of his way to hurt the defensive player, so I believe the umps just made things easier for themselves. If the defensive player is in the area, he’ll usually get the out call as a courtesy from the umpire, avoid an injury, and the umpire doesn’t have to make a judgement call on whether or not the runner was being over-aggressive.
It’s consistently called, no one seems to have a problem with it, and everyone goes home happy. As a fan, though, I wish it were called correctly.
As it stands now, the runner is entitled to throw their body/legs wide of the base as long as they are still able to touch the base with their hand (or vice versa). If they go so far wide of the base that they can’t come into contact with it, then that is obstruction. I think this rule is generally called pretty well, as I rarely see runners miss the bag entirely trying to break up a relay.
I think part of what I was seeking was whether the rules had changed or the calling of the rules. Seems to be the latter.
I understnd the rationale, but I think the correct procedure in any sport is always to a) make the rules work for the game, and B) call the rules exactly as written with as little tolerance as human judgment allows.
For example, if we decide that strictly following the current rules will hurt too many basemen, then let’s draw a 2-foot box around the bag with chalk and if the baseman’s foot is in the box with ball in possesion, that’s a good force play; if not, not.
But saying the rule is A, while actually doing B is a stain on the game.
Imho, it’s a necessary evil, but the real problem is what a baserunner is allowed to do to break up a play. Because of that, we have this dilemma about the defensive player, and we also have severe injuries because of catcher-runner collisions at home.
I think runners need to have their “rights” constrained.
I’m well aware of what the rule is now. My argument is that it’s silly; that the runner should not, in fact, be allowed to slide his legs six feet wide of the base in order to trip up the fielder, even if his hand does manage to touch the bag.
OK, then what would you suggest as an alternative? If you draw the line anywhere else, then you leave the ruling open to interpretation as to whether or not the runner was “too far away from the base”. As it is, at least there is a clear delineation between “allowed” and “not allowed”. Granted, the game is not called in such black-and-white terms, but making the rule subjective by definition can’t be the best solution.
Of course, this phenomenon is not unique to baseball. If basketball referees called traveling and carrying the ball strictly according to the rules, the final scores of games would be somewhere in the low to mid teens…
You could make a rule with a specific requirement, but that still needs the umpire to determine whether each particular play meets the requirement.
For example, you could set a limit on either side of the base (maybe three feet, as a hypothetical), and if part of the runner’s body slides outside that limit and interferes with the fielder, then it would be called interference. This would allow for an umpire’s interpretation of a fairly clear-cut set of limits, the same way that the strike zone does now.
I played basketball all through my high school years, and loved it. When i moved to the US, i immediately became a fan of baseball and football. One of the reasons i couldn’t get interested in the NBA is that i quickly got sick of seeing pro players get away with travels and carrying that would have been called in my high school games. For this reason, while your argument about basketball might be correct, i don’t find it a very compelling reason to change my mind.
The pros should be fun to watch because they’re better than us, not because they get to ignore the rules with impunity.
Seems pretty obvious to me. If you are legitimately sliding into a base your foot always hits the front of the bag. The only time it doesn’t is when you are deliberately trying to spike the fielder. A rule saying essentially “A runner sliding feet first must hit the front of the bag” seems like a logical and easily called safety move.
This is not correct. You can slide around the fielder and touch the back of the bag, avoiding the tag. It’s a completely legitimate tactic and should not be eliminated. If you require the runner to attempt to touch the front of the bag you’ve done damage to the game, IMO
Are you saying that it’s “silly” to permit runners to do anything at all in the course of running and sliding to try to make it difficult for fielders, or just that too much leeway is now given?