A coupla rules tweaks for '25

[Frayed Knot]

Approved by the competition committee this week



1) in the case where the defensive team was violating the anti-shift rules (three fielders on either side of 2B or an IF'er with feet on the OF grass)

- Previously, if an infielder was caught violating the rule the batting team could accept the result of the play or have the hitter be awarded an automatic ball.

Under the new rules, the batting team may accept the result of the play or the batter will be granted a free base (enabling any other runners to advance one base) if there is a violation and the violating player was the first to touch the ball in play.

In such a scenario, the violating player would be charged an error and no at-bat would be registered for the batter.



2)The second rule change involves the rare practice of running through a base other than first base on a force play. For example, if there are runners on first and third with two out and a ball is hit on the ground, the runner going to second base might opt to run straight through the bag rather than sliding in the hope that he'd get there faster and beat the throw.

In the past, if a runner was called out at second in this scenario, and upon review a replay official found that he actually did beat the throw before going past the bag, the umpires would have to ignore that the runner overran the base and place him on second.

The new rule change gives umpires the power to call the trail runner out for abandonment of second base even if he beat the throw. He is considered to have abandoned the bag as soon as both feet land on the other side of the base.

In that case, whether the runner at third scores or not will depend on whether he touched home plate before or after the runner at second was ruled to have abandoned second base.





On the first one: I don't remember an illegal defense call made last year (do they still even call it in the NBA?). But, if the call is made and the illegally slotted IF is the first to touch the batted ball I can see the wisdom in the free base option. A bigger penalty makes fudging on the rules less tempting.

'Hey, I'll cheat onto the OF grass and if I can throw him out on a grounder good for us ... and if they catch me it's just Ball One so no biggie!'



On the second: the way it reads I think this is only applicable if the runner over-runs 2nd or 3rd and is ruled safe only after replay review, iow, after the fact.

So it's kind of a rarity on top of a rarity.

But some runners were using the over-run as a kind of strategy which was risky, but kind of cool at the same time. ex: Runners on 1st & 3rd/1 out. Runner from 1st runs through 2nd because it gets him to the base quicker, sometimes quickly enough to beat the force play. So now if the batter is out at 1st on the replay, it's only the 2nd out and the run from 3rd scores because the force is now off even if the defense eventually puts the other runner out between 2nd & 3rd. And maybe the runner himself winds up safe at either 2nd or 3rd if the defense doesn't play it correctly. So, smart strategy by the runner(s) if you can pull it off!

But I guess the purpose here is to Not reward guys who were initially called out via a force. He was called out therefore him leaving the base was abandonment so he's out anyway even if replay later rules otherwise. So the real culprit here is the limitations of replay and the idea that incorrect calls can all get fixed after the fact and the situation will be put back to how it 'would have been' with a correct call.



https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-shift-baserunning-rules-changes-2025https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-shift-baserunning-rules-changes-2025

[Gwreck]

I saw in an article in the Athletic that there were 2 shift violations called in 2024.



As for the “running through second” play, it seems like an odd rule to add. If a runner keeps running towards third, is that “abandonment?” Or is it only if he runs through the base into left field?

[Frayed Knot]

The logic behind it, from what I can figure, is that a runner, once called out, can't continue to run the bases as if he's still part of the play. So if/when this happened AND that runner was later ruled 'Safe' by replay, he was placed back on 2nd base while the other batter/runners were as they were when the play ended.

Now, what they're saying, is that IF there's a replay reversal the runner can, in the umpire's judgement, be called out for abandoning the base rather then automatically being re-awarded the base. I guess what the runner is supposed to do is hang around 2nd while he waits and sees if his bench issues a challenge to the call rather than continue running and possibly compel the defense to try and chase down a runner already called out or serve to distract them from another player who is still a live runner.



Now, supposing the relay to 1st is thrown wide and the batter/runner heads for 2nd? At that point he'd have to head towards 3rd (and maybe home?) so I guess that's where umpire judgement comes into play. He could rule that he wasn't running to distract or confuse and therefore would Not be out by abandonment if replay reversed his out call.

[MFS62]

So, without specifying what abandonment means, they're still leaving it to the judgement of the umpire?

Why bother?



Later

[Frayed Knot]

So, without specifying what abandonment means, they're still leaving it to the judgement of the umpire?

From above: "He is considered to have abandoned the bag as soon as both feet land on the other side of the base."



What they appear to be leaving up to umpire judgement is intent. Is a runner, already called out, continuing to run so as to confuse or distract the defense?

If so, the umps have the option to Not reward him with his base back if the replay rules that he should have been safe in the first place.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: On the first one: I don't remember an illegal defense call made last year (do they still even call it in the NBA?).

They don't call illegal zone defenses in the NBA anymore because they're now legal, and have been for more than 20 years. The NBA came to its senses. Strategy is good.

[Frayed Knot]

I thought that was the case but wasn't sure.

I just threw that line in there because it's the first thing that came to mind when I started typing the words, 'Illegal Defense'.

One used to hear that multiple times per game, it seems, back in the day.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: I thought that was the case but wasn't sure. I just threw that line in there because it's the first thing that came to mind when I started typing the words, 'Illegal Defense'. One used to hear that multiple times per game, it seems, back in the day.

I know exactly whatchoo mean. I remember when zone defenses were illegal in the NBA more than now, when they are legal.



The relatively new NBA rule that I still have a hard time adjusting to is the one that no longer requires the home team to wearing "home white" jerseys. The NHL has made the same change but I don't follow hockey.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

It's completely flipped in hockey, home is for colors road is to defer to the home teams colors.



It's not in the rules but customary

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think that's how the NFL works too. The home team chooses, and usually picks the colors. The Cowboys, however, always pick the white at home and just about always wear the white on the road as well. I remember one team tried to psych the Cowboys out by wearing the white at home and making Dallas wear their rarely used blue jerseys.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think that's how the NFL works too. The home team chooses, and usually picks the colors. The Cowboys, however, always pick the white at home and just about always wear the white on the road as well. I remember one team tried to psych the Cowboys out by wearing the white at home and making Dallas wear their rarely used blue jerseys.

The NFL has always worked that way. The Cowboys, BTW, have somewhat loosened their tradition of wearing only white jerseys at home. They have worn their dark (i.e., blue) jerseys at home this season on occasion and now do so once in a while. The Cowboys rival that was most likely to try and "jinx" them by wearing home white jerseys was their divisional rival, the former Washington Redskins, who were not committed to wearing either dark or white jerseys at home and would typically wear white jersey for home games against the Cowboys.



The Cowboys tradition of wearing white jerseys at home was not borne of superstition, but rather from the desire to require the visiting team to wear their "colored" jerseys, thus providing the attending fans (and those watching on TV, I guess) with a variety of uniform colors. The thinking was that if the Cowboys always wore their blue jerseys for home games, fans would only see those blue jerseys and the visitors' white jerseys.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: It's completely flipped in hockey, home is for colors road is to defer to the home teams colors. It's not in the rules but customary

So the home NHL team does not have the optiion of wearing white jerseys?

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

O they can and do sometimes

[Frayed Knot]

At some point (early '90s?) the NHL flipped from home=white/road=color to the other way around.

Neither was required or universal, either before or after, but the default method pulled a 180 at some point for some reason.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Baseball slowly making its way there too