|
Mike: Well, I got my interpretation from Henry Pollard two years ago. Haven't been told differently and it makes sense (well, as much sense as there can be with a double base). Going "up" for a ball isn't a ball drawing the fielder into foul ground, but over the base actually placing the fielder in the path of the BR. Being drawn into "foul territory" means off the base and would require the fielder to come back to the base.
I had a chance to chat with H.P. last spring at NUS and that was the one play that I wanted to talk about. Of course he said the same thing as he told you two years ago, and it seems to be cast in cement now – even, as you noted, supported by case play.
Still – I have a problem with it. As a young player, I was taught to field a bad (errant?) throw at 1B by going to the outside of the (single) base and stretching in foul territory. This gave me a better opportunity to catch the throw, and it reduced the chance of collision as the B-R simply slid over to the fair side of the base.
I cannot do that with a double base if I have to maintain contact with the white bag, as I would be stretching over the colored base – creating a very unsafe situation. But if I went to the safe position of tagging the colored base and standing in foul territory, you would not give me the out based on case play 8.2.40
Suppose I take a very strict interpretation of case play 8.2.41 and go to foul territory and lift my tag foot one inch off the colored bag. Then after catching the throw I close back down on the base. Thus I am fielding an errant throw in foul ground, and then coming back to the bag. Would you give me the out?
WMB
|