[mick]

Originally posted by akalsey

Which is in conflict with 7.08(c).

1.06 deals with this in a "Note" and 7.08 uses an "approved ruling." Is there a order of precedence here? Are approved rulings "stonger" than notes?

LL Rule 1.06 Note: "If the impact of a runner breaks a base loose from its position, no play can be made on that runner at that base if the runner had reached the base safely. If there is continual action involving a subsequent runner, the base plate becomes the actual base for rending of the umpire's decision."

LL Rule 7.08(c):

Ruling (1)- "If the impact of a runner breaks a base loose from its position, no play can be made on that runner at that base if the runner had reached the base safely."

Ruling (2)If a base is dislodged from its position during a play, any following runner on the same play shall be considered as touching or occupying the base if, in the umpire's judgement, that runner touches or occupies the dislodged bag, or the point marked by the original location of the dislodged bag.

akalsey,
I think this is probably one of those "age dependent" judgements we have to make, because the rule writers weren't sure what to do with it.

We know that LLBB is based on OBR, and that OBR says to go for the original spot, but with one LL rules book and with many kids/any kids starting so young, it would make a good deal of sense, to a kid who was told to "touch the next base", to go touch the bag where ever it may have gone.

For my purposes, I will be telling the coaches at the plate meeting to make sure there 12-yr-olds go to the base and not the bag.

Within the topic of this thread, if a kid is smart enough to figger he has a better chance to be safe at the bag or the base plate, then that kid oughta be headed for the base plate, just like the big boys.

We know that anyone can call balls and strikes, we get "paid" to make the tough decisions.

mick