How would you score this?

[Shelia B]

Funny moment from tournament today. A girl was on first base and she stole 2nd. The girl was safe on the steal but she ran back to first thinking it was a foul ball. As the girl trotted back to first base the defense just watched her walk back. The girl realized her mistake and immediately stole again on the next pitch. The girl was safe on this steal as well. How would you score this? Would you score it all as one stolen base or would you count it as the girl stealing second, then stealing first, and then stealing second again. I feel like counting it all as one steal makes the most sense but what do you guys think?

 

[Pigskinguru34]

First play nothing happened since she retreated back to first.

Second play, stolen base.

 

[Nimrod]

Something similar happened in a MLB game in 1911. Difference was that the base-stealer waited until the next pitch to return to first.

From Baseball-Reference:

Germany Schaefer's most famous antic was to steal first base on August 4, 1911. In the bottom of the 9th of a game against the White Sox, he was at first base with teammate Clyde Milan at third and the game tied. He broke for second base, hoping to draw a throw that would allow Milan to complete a double steal. Catcher Fred Payne held on to the ball however, so Schaefer decided to return to first base on the next pitch, again hoping to draw a throw. Sox manager Hugh Duffy came out to argue, and Schaefer broke for second again, this time getting caught in a rundown. Milan broke for home, but was retired before he could score. Schaefer then argued unsuccessfully that the White Sox had had ten men on the field (counting Duffy). Umpire Tom Connolly said after the game that Schaefer "had a perfect right to go from second back to first base". The rules were clarified after this to state explicitly that no baserunner could run the bases backwards.

 

[GoGamecocks]

Something similar happened in a MLB game in 1911. Difference was that the base-stealer waited until the next pitch to return to first.

From Baseball-Reference:

Germany Schaefer's most famous antic was to steal first base on August 4, 1911. In the bottom of the 9th of a game against the White Sox, he was at first base with teammate Clyde Milan at third and the game tied. He broke for second base, hoping to draw a throw that would allow Milan to complete a double steal. Catcher Fred Payne held on to the ball however, so Schaefer decided to return to first base on the next pitch, again hoping to draw a throw. Sox manager Hugh Duffy came out to argue, and Schaefer broke for second again, this time getting caught in a rundown. Milan broke for home, but was retired before he could score. Schaefer then argued unsuccessfully that the White Sox had had ten men on the field (counting Duffy). Umpire Tom Connolly said after the game that Schaefer "had a perfect right to go from second back to first base". The rules were clarified after this to state explicitly that no baserunner could run the bases backwards.

Specifically, the rule at the time of Schaefer's death read as follows: a player is out if "After he has acquired legal possession of a base, he runs the bases in reverse order for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game. The umpire shall immediately call 'Time' and declare the runner out".

It is hard to believe that he was teammates with Ty Cobb. If you're a baseball fan, you really should read The Glory of Their Times by Lawrence Ritter - probably the best baseball book ever written. Also outstanding was Ty Cobb - A Terrible Beauty by Charles Leerhsen - though Leerhsen pulls much of his source material from the Ritter book.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Sorry for the long rant ...

Ahhh ... my (current) biggest pet peeve in the rulebook. I continue to argue this with my fellow umpires who want to allow runners to go backwards after legally reaching the next base.

I wish the wording "After he (she) has acquired legal possession of a base" was still in the rule and "for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game" was removed.

IMO, a runner has no justifiable reason to retreat from a legally acquired base. If there is no play made on the runner, many umpires will argue that the offense was just dumb and the cost of that is their runner "goes back" a base. Sounds logical. EXCEPT ... what happens when the catcher air mails the ball into centerfield on the next "steal" OR a fielder playing a batted ball plays on that runner and overthrows (on a play that should NOT be existing) and the run(s) scores (runner on third or the runner in question)? Why did we punish the defense by allowing that second opportunity? It seemed as if there was no harm initially, but we really rewarded the offense with a "do over" since they didn't get the error the first time.

I have had a runner retreat from a legally acquired base three times in my 10+ years of umpiring. None of them were a "stole first" situation; all were during a play. The first time was in an NFHS Regional game and we called the runner out because she reached second base legally, then retreated on a dropped Infield Fly call. The shortstop played on her and threw the ball to the fence, which allowed runs to score (easy to say she "confused the defense" on that one). We called the runner out and put the other runners back.

The other two times the batter runner thought he/she was out at second, headed back to the dugout, realized it, and went to first. There was no other runner on base, so I did not see any advantage to be gained and we let the runner remain at first. Thinking back, the "next pitch/play airmail" scenario still could apply so I am less comfortable with allowing this in the future.

No help on scoring it, but I would not count subsequent steals. That's just daddy padding stats.

 

[Greatdaytobeawildcat]

IMO, a runner has no justifiable reason to retreat from a legally acquired base.

Is there a definition of legally acquired base? If a runner who first legally occupied the base returns to it, the trail runner cannot also be on that base, so they would have to return to the base they previously legally occupied. So is it that the trail runner doesn't legally occupy a base until the runner in front of them is put out or has acquired the next base? That makes sense, but not sure I've seen the definition any where in rules.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I'd have to check to see if it is spelled out. One can easily put one together with the existing rules though.

You are correct about the lead runner occupying the base. That is why you cannot just say "run the bases in reverse order" (as the rule does) ... there are times that it is legal (and even required). I contend this is what the rule really means when it refers to running the bases backwards in other sections (e.g., interference, obstruction, out of the base path), but too many umpires interpret that literally as "no, no, they can legally run the bases backwards AT ANY TIME as long as it doesn't confuse the defense or make a travesty of the game."

In reality, once you have legally acquired a base, there is NO reason to go backwards.

 

[Shelia B]

Sorry for the long rant ...

Ahhh ... my (current) biggest pet peeve in the rulebook. I continue to argue this with my fellow umpires who want to allow runners to go backwards after legally reaching the next base.

I wish the wording "After he (she) has acquired legal possession of a base" was still in the rule and "for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game" was removed.

IMO, a runner has no justifiable reason to retreat from a legally acquired base. If there is no play made on the runner, many umpires will argue that the offense was just dumb and the cost of that is their runner "goes back" a base. Sounds logical. EXCEPT ... what happens when the catcher air mails the ball into centerfield on the next "steal" OR a fielder playing a batted ball plays on that runner and overthrows (on a play that should NOT be existing) and the run(s) scores (runner on third or the runner in question)? Why did we punish the defense by allowing that second opportunity? It seemed as if there was no harm initially, but we really rewarded the offense with a "do over" since they didn't get the error the first time.

I have had a runner retreat from a legally acquired base three times in my 10+ years of umpiring. None of them were a "stole first" situation; all were during a play. The first time was in an NFHS Regional game and we called the runner out because she reached second base legally, then retreated on a dropped Infield Fly call. The shortstop played on her and threw the ball to the fence, which allowed runs to score (easy to say she "confused the defense" on that one). We called the runner out and put the other runners back.

The other two times the batter runner thought he/she was out at second, headed back to the dugout, realized it, and went to first. There was no other runner on base, so I did not see any advantage to be gained and we let the runner remain at first. Thinking back, the "next pitch/play airmail" scenario still could apply so I am less comfortable with allowing this in the future.

No help on scoring it, but I would not count subsequent steals. That's just daddy padding stats.

If you were the umpire in this situation would you call the girl out for going back to first base? I heard some other parents complaining that she should’ve been called out for going back.

 

[The Man In Blue]

If you were the umpire in this situation would you call the girl out for going back to first base? I heard some other parents complaining that she should’ve been called out for going back.

In my experience, I am in the minority of umpires who would consider making that call. With no runner on third base and no play made on her, I'm probably not going to make the call as I don't see the advantage to the offense (the possible second chance for the defense screwing it up is why I feel we SHOULD be making that call -- just like we call an obstruction when it happens, we do NOT wait to see if it matters).

I also did not ask the level of ball which would also influence my decision to call it or not.

Not trying to tap dance around the direct question, but I am trying to make it clear that this is not something all umpires even agree on. It seems like a black and white call, but it is not due to the archaic remnants of verbiage in the written rule.

Edit to add: Here is the link to the previous conversation on the play where we did call the runner out. You will see the majority favor allowing the runner to do this. https://www.discussfastpitch.com/threads/fly-rule-for-a-dummy.38737/page-4