Good discussion here, and thank you. Nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate... that's why we're here.

My only beef (again, playing devil's advocate), if a base becomes dislodged, using the rules indicated by previous posters here, you are telling me that because an offensive player dislodged a base that for the remainder of the play, the defense must defend that base at two different spots?

To clarify, R1 slides into 3rd, bag breaks away 3 feet into foul territory, we'll say in the coach's box. Throw from F2 is muffed by F5. Ball trickles away. R1 gets up and runs home. F5 retrieves ball and throws home. R2 stops and is in a pickle. SO NOW R1 has a CHOICE as to where to run back to... where the dislodged base NOW SITS OR where the dislodged base SHOULD SIT. Am I correct on that?

If that's right, sounds like a crappy situation for the defensive team, who now would have to defend two different "safe spots" from the runner.

It's clear. It's written.
 

<U>LL Rule 1.06 Note</U>: <B><font color = red>"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."</font></B>

mick

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?

Yeah, yer not wrong.
 

<U>LL Rule 1.06 Note</U>: <B><font color = red>"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."</font></B>

<U>LL Rule 7.08(c)</U>: <B><font color = green> <LI>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." <LI>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 <U>touches or occupies the dislodged bag</U>, or the point marked by the original location of the dislodged bag. </font></B>

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