Miscellaneous Rules

[RKBUmp]

I believe there is a case play of the exact situation. Any play that takes the fielder into foul ground they can use the safety base. About the only things the defense can't do with the safety base is field the ball in fair territory and then only step on the safety base or set up on the safety base for a throw from fair territory.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

I believe there is a case play of the exact situation. Any play that takes the fielder into foul ground they can use the safety base. About the only things the defense can't do with the safety base is field the ball in fair territory and then only step on the safety base or set up on the safety base for a throw from fair territory.

Out is the correct call.

14U Class C tournament this weekend: Strike 3 is uncaught, and bounces off of F2 and rolls in fair ground to F1. F1 throws poorly to 1B, where F3 catches the ball on the safety base well before the BR arrives. BU called the BR safe. I think that's an out, too. Errant throw exception, 8.2.N(5).

At this same tournament, several umpires had a WAY TOO LONG discussion on the topic of "hands are part of the bat".

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Out is the correct call.

14U Class C tournament this weekend: Strike 3 is uncaught, and bounces off of F2 and rolls in fair ground to F1. F1 throws poorly to 1B, where F3 catches the ball on the safety base well before the BR arrives. BU called the BR safe. I think that's an out, too. Errant throw exception, 8.2.N(5).

At this same tournament, several umpires had a WAY TOO LONG discussion on the topic of "hands are part of the bat".

"Class C"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Out is the correct call.

14U Class C tournament this weekend: Strike 3 is uncaught, and bounces off of F2 and rolls in fair ground to F1. F1 throws poorly to 1B, where F3 catches the ball on the safety base well before the BR arrives. BU called the BR safe. I think that's an out, too. Errant throw exception, 8.2.N(5).

One of the dumbest rule exceptions in the book

At this same tournament, several umpires had a WAY TOO LONG discussion on the topic of "hands are part of the bat".

Any, ANY discussion on this is too long. Apparently, the Class C tournament had some umpires who still need a lot of training, or at least some remedial reading comprehension

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

One of the dumbest rule exceptions in the book

Agree. I could never understand why the rules would allow the defense to catch a break when an infielder's wild throw to first base causes F3 to have to use the colored bag. I understand the theory behind it; they don't want F3 to cross into the BR's path to touch the white bag. But how often would something like that happen?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Agree. I could never understand why the rules would allow the defense to catch a break when an infielder's wild throw to first base causes F3 to have to use the colored bag. I understand the theory behind it; they don't want F3 to cross into the BR's path to touch the white bag. But how often would something like that happen?

It was changed by the present regime. When the double-base (or safety-base as it was called at that time) first hit the field, the interpretation was that the throw that took the defender into foul territory and away from the base, s/he could then use the colored portion. The key to the interp was that the "errant" throw (which ASA/USA still refuses to define) took the defender away from the base also removed them from the runner's path to be able to use the colored portion. The present regime takes the wording literally and considers simply moving into foul territory (which is where the colored base is located) give the defender the right to use that base even though it places both runner and defender in jeopardy of physical injury. The interpretation completely contradicts the purpose of the rule.

[CecilOne]

I did have to teach a coach about hands vs. bat again this weekend. Batter HBP in the hand.
DC came out to question that aren't the "hands part of the bat". [B]

He also then asked that if on a swing the ball hit the hand (actually hand hit the ball) it would then be a HBP.
After I explained, he finally realized that it would then be a strike.

[CecilOne]

Also, AGAIN , it is not obstruction if the fielder has the ball before blocking the base.

AGAIN, it is not obstruction if the runner is not hindered, even if the fielder is just enjoying the scenery.


I guess that's all for this week.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I did have to teach a coach about hands vs. bat again this weekend. Batter HBP in the hand.
DC came out to question that aren't the "hands part of the bat". [B]

He also then asked that if on a swing the ball hit the hand (actually hand hit the ball) it would then be a HBP.
After I explained, he finally realized that it would then be a strike.

The best answer I've seen to the hands are part of the bat was an umpire who told the coach to get a bat. "Do you see any hands that are part of this bat?. No. Then the hands are not part of the bat."