Double First Base

[SRW]

Question for discussion:

ASA Rule 8-2-M:
1. A batted ball hitting or bounding over the white portion is declared fair and a batted ball hitting or bounding over the colored portion is declared foul.

What happens if the ball hits directly on the line separating the two colored portions of the base - in essence, hits both the white AND the colored portion at the same time?

Same concept, what if it bounds directly over the same line?

[streamdoc]

I think that this situation was mentioned somewhere below recently, or it could have been on the ASA Washington board. I'd say a ball hitting on the joint where the two bags touch is fair just if it hit the chalk line. The ball would be touching some portion of fair territory (a portion of the white bag). Similarly, if a ball bounds directly over the joint where the two bags touch and first lands in fair territory or on the right field chalk line, it would be fair just as if the safety bag was not there and the same situation occured. In the recent post I beloieve that the consensu was that the rule was not worded in the best way.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by streamdoc
I think that this situation was mentioned somewhere below recently, or it could have been on the ASA Washington board. I'd say a ball hitting on the joint where the two bags touch is fair just if it hit the chalk line. The ball would be touching some portion of fair territory (a portion of the white bag). Similarly, if a ball bounds directly over the joint where the two bags touch and first lands in fair territory or on the right field chalk line, it would be fair just as if the safety bag was not there and the same situation occured. In the recent post I beloieve that the consensu was that the rule was not worded in the best way.

Not worded in the best way?

I hate this base, period. I think I've made that quite clear. However, the rules which apply to it are so simple, I don't understand why people try to overthink it to the point of making it difficult on themselves.

[SRW]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not worded in the best way?

I hate this base, period. I think I've made that quite clear. However, the rules which apply to it are so simple, I don't understand why people try to overthink it to the point of making it difficult on themselves.

Mike:
I agree with Troy - this particular rule applying to the base is NOT worded well. It makes sence to me that it should be treated similar to hitting the chalk line... but the literal wording of the rule doesn't allow that. Hence my reasoning to post it here.

As far as the rest of the rules applying to the base, I didn't question them. Yes, they are fairly simple... but then again, not everyone has your years of experience with it. A lot of people look up to you for guidance - it would be appreciated if you didn't look down on them when giving it.

[streamdoc]

Yes, people do tend to overthink the rules, and try to take them too literally word for word. This is a perfect example of why our trainers here in Seattle emphasize thinking about the intent of the rule, and how it applies to the situation. But, the wording of the rule in the book, if taken literally clearly contradicts itself. With this wording, a ball landing on the line, touching both the white bag and the safety bag at the exact same time would be both fair and foul. Obviously, this is impossible and up to the judgement of the umpire to make the call.

By the way, for all of you looking for this thread below, it was on the ASA Washington Board that this discussion just took place - as SRW knows.

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by streamdoc
Yes, people do tend to overthink the rules, and try to take them too literally word for word. This is a perfect example of why our trainers here in Seattle emphasize thinking about the intent of the rule, and how it applies to the situation. But, the wording of the rule in the book, if taken literally clearly contradicts itself. With this wording, a ball landing on the line, touching both the white bag and the safety bag at the exact same time would be both fair and foul. Obviously, this is impossible and up to the judgement of the umpire to make the call.

By the way, for all of you looking for this thread below, it was on the ASA Washington Board that this discussion just took place - as SRW knows.

The problem with the wording probably comes from the same source as most wording problems in the books - people asking inane questions and then the rule writers answering without perfect precision because they know the answer too well.

[U_of_I_Blue]

A bounding ball is foul when I throw my hands up to signal dead ball and yell "FOUL!"

A bounding ball is fair in all other circumstances.

Where it hit the bag doesn't matter .

That simple. The book's wrong, we all know it. If a coach wants to argue a call using this, he can do it somewhere else because I'm not listening.

[Edited by U_of_I_Blue on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 05:24 PM]

[noobie]

I had to make a similar call yesterday. The batted ball first bounced just inside fair territory about 2 feet short of 1B, then bounded over the double base. It looked to me like the ball bounded over the orange portion (didn't touch it, tho), and then continued into foul territory beyond 1B.

I have to set the bases up before the game. On this field, that double bag is the only one spiked down. I always put the white portion covering the entire chalk line and the rest in fair territory: the orange portion is entirely in foul territory. I spike it down so tight that it's almost impossible to move or dislodge.

This is the only way I can call a foul ball over the double bag. If the ball's entirely over the orange (sometimes a tough call), it's foul. But of course the offensive team had the 1B side dugout, and everybody thought I'd blown the call. Too bad

I'm starting to dislike that double bag. I find the foul/fair call much easier on the 3B line.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Speaking ASA

I'm sorry, but there is nothing hard to understand in the rules making it difficult to rule a fair or foul ball with a double base that is not applied to a single base.

If 8.2.M.1 is a difficult read, handle the base the same as the BR does once becoming a runner, the orange bag doesn't exist.

[whiskers_ump]

Know I am late on this, but if the ball split the two, then it passed over the white...The
line separating the two is pencil thin, so fair ball. Has to be fair.

[scottk_61]

Originally posted by SRW
Question for discussion:

ASA Rule 8-2-M:
1. A batted ball hitting or bounding over the white portion is declared fair and a batted ball hitting or bounding over the colored portion is declared foul.

What happens if the ball hits directly on the line separating the two colored portions of the base - in essence, hits both the white AND the colored portion at the same time?

Same concept, what if it bounds directly over the same line?

Think about it, this is really easy.
If a batted ball hits a base, it is fair.
So, if it hit BOTH portions of a double base, then it hit some part of the white bag THUS FAIR.
It is impossible for the ball to hit part of it and not be fair.
As for bounding, if it cut the corner of the two then fair. If it is clearly only over the colored portion, foul.

This is easy and only the rulebook mavens with no real experience argue this any other way.

[streamdoc]

I hope we can all agree about the ruling asked in the original post by SRW. In fact, I think he even agrees with the ruling. That being said, the rule book is still worded incorrectly. I said it before, and will say it again - read the rule, think about it, figure out what the intent is, and you'll be fine. If the wording of a rule clearly contradicts itself, as this one does, then there must be a mistake somewhere. We all have to realize that the rules are written by real people, and sometimes what makes sense to them while writing the rule, doesn't really add up. This question is a perfect case in point.