1st Base

[Stair-Climber]

NFHS Question:
B1 hits to the infield. Ball is fielded and throw goes to 1st base. F3 has one foot in the middle of 1st base bag (no double bag in Indiana), covering much of the bag's surface, waiting for the throw. Throw to F3 just beats B1 to 1st base for the out. As B1 arrives to the 1st base bag, she runs into F3 who is still covering much of the bag's surface with her foot. As B1 runs into F3, B1 gets knocked away from the bag and never even touches it. That out ended the half-inning. B1's coach comes over and politely questions me about F3 covering much of the bag with her foot, thus not allowing B1 to even reach the bag. I told the coach that because a play was being made on B1 at 1st base, I didn't know of any rule that would require F3 to only touch the side of the bag or any certain portion of the bag. In other words, I told the coach that F3 had the right to step on any part of the bag as long as a play was being made at 1st base. My question: Was I correct in my ruling? If not, is there a rule somewhere that describes where the defensive player, who is covering 1st base and taking the throw to 1st base, must place her foot on the bag?

[Edited by Stair-Climber on Apr 29th, 2004 at 11:12 PM]

[greymule]

I've never seen any rule, in softball or baseball, that specifies permissible and impermissible areas for a fielder's foot on a base.

The play you described is just another example of the kind of stupid things that happen because kids are not coached properly (or simply forget or ignore what they are told). How many times have you seen a fielder stand in front of a base to catch the ball while the runner slows down and goes in standing up as the ball arrives? Bump! And both coaches file a grievance with you.

I sometimes played F3 in LL. Nobody had to tell me to put my foot on the side of the base. But back in 1960 every kid played sandlot baseball and had already figured that one out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule


I sometimes played F3 in LL.

Was the field on the ark forward or aft? And didn't the animals get in the way?

[greymule]

Actually, in antediluvian times, before even the dead ball era, animals could talk and also play baseball.

And the lion knew to keep his paw, and the lamb his hoof, on the side of the base.

We concealed from the horse the fact that the ball had been made from some relative of his, though I think he had his suspicions.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Stair-Climber
Was I correct in my ruling?

NFHS.

You may have made the right call, but your "ruling" was not correct.

Just to limit the "what ifs" here, this is a thrown ball (not a batted ball) and the running lane did not come into play.

A fielder may position herself anywhere she darn well pleases.

A runner may take any base path to the base she darn well pleases. The runner has the right to any part of the base she wants - she does not have to take the part the defense "gives" her.

But, here is what these two cannot do:

The fielder cannot impede the progress of the runner unless she has the ball or is about to receive the ball. This is obstruction.

"About to receive" does not mean the same thing as "setting up to receive" or "ready to receive." It means the ball is closer to the fielder than the runner is.

Also, "impeding the progress" does not require contact. Blocking the base and causing the runner to divert or slow down is also "impeding the progress."

The runner, for her part, cannot collide standing up with a fielder who has the ball. This is interference.

If the ball and runner arrive at the same time, and contact is incidental contact - not obstruction, not interference.

It sounds, from your description, that the ball arrived just before the runner. Unless the fielder's position impeded the progress of the runner (caused her to slow / change path) prior to the arrival of the ball, then this cannot be obstruction. It may be interference, but since it sounds like a bang-bang play, chances are this was just incidental contact.

[TwoBits]

Funny. You really don't have this problem in baseball (where steel cleats are legal).

[Robmoz]

Just curious....will Fed ever adopt the double-bagged 1B?

I have had games where the F3 gets seriously injured when stepped on by B1 or vice versa with a train wreck collision. I would not expect the double bag for college or pro's. I do not want to discount the fact that poor mechanics by F3 can be corrected with proper instruction, but at the HS or Rec level, a double bag sure can save a lot of grief.

[Dakota]

NFHS already recognizes the double base at first. It is by state association adoption, so some states may require it, some not.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by Dakota
"About to receive" does not mean the same thing as "setting up to receive" or "ready to receive." It means the ball is closer to the fielder than the runner is.

WHOOOAAA!

By "closer" I assume you mean time-wise (less time for the ball to arrive than for the runner to arrive at the location of the defender)?

The fastest runners might move at about 20 mph whereas the fastest throws might move at about 90 mph. Well probably not quite those numbers in high school softball... but your statement really caught me as unusual...

So a ball moving four times as fast as the runner could be four times farther away in distance and yet arrive at the same time as the runner.

I think it is a creative way to think of "about to receive" but I'm not convinced of it's validity.

[Steve M]

Tony,
No, "about to receive" does not mean that the ball will arrive before the runner. It means that if everything is somehow stopped, the ball must be closer to the fielder than the runner is.

I wasn't sure how I'd like this change - I'd understood "about to receive" pretty well and had no problem using/applying it. Since I've been on the field a few times now, I prefer this year's change that eliminates the phrase "about to receive." I'm convinced that it's a good change.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Steve M
Tony,
No, "about to receive" does not mean that the ball will arrive before the runner. It means that if everything is somehow stopped, the ball must be closer to the fielder than the runner is.

Actually, 99.9999999999999999% of the time, that is exactly what happens.

"About to receive" means exactly what Tom posted, that at some point in time, the ball gets closer to the fielder than the runner.

I don't understand why everyone gets so up tight about this phrase.

[CecilOne]

Ignore bad throws, dropped ball, wind, wet field and all that stuff. Isn't the whole point of "about to receive" that the fielder probably will receive the ball before the runner touches the base and therefore is not guilty of obstruction?