ASA Rule 8 Section 2.M.5 - "On an errant throw pulling the defense off the base into foul ground, the defense and the B-R can use either the white or colored portion."

#1 On an errant throw from the SS position the 1B is drawn to the colored base and only touches that portion with ball clearly arriving before batter/runner who proceeds through the base. Time is called and coach appeals that fielder only touched orange base, what is the call?

#2 Bunt to 1B, fields and backs up to 1B at the last second turning and walking through the base ahead of the runner touching only the orange base. Time is called and coach appeals that fielder only touched orange base, what is the call?

# 1 legal, it was the result of an "errant" throw.
#2 not legal, it was a bunt.
Personally I don't like the ASA allowing the colored portion to be used by a fielder- EVER. I umpire about 20 different Rec Councils programs, all age brackets. NONE of them want the ASA version of the double bag use. They all want the "cut & dry" version..ie Runner uses the orange, fielder uses the white. If A bad throw causes the fielder to land on the orange side, or causes the fielder to come back to the orange side,,they should have to tag the batter/runner and give up the attempt to reach the white portion. Only however if the batter-runner is in that area.
Its still a grey area situation I am suggesting

#1. That is not an errant throw. An errant throw is a ball the fielder cannot catch and maintain contact with the bag. If the fielder simply shifted to the colored portion of the bag, and caught the ball, the BR is safe unless the fielder also touched the white portion or tagged the BR prior to reaching either base.

#2. Being a bunt is irrelevant. F3 did not put the BR out, so the call is safe. Since the play was killed, not appeal may be accepted until the runner has the opportunity to return to 1B.

If NONE of them want it, that means they either don't understand it or are dumb as dirt. Of course, the umpires may be calling it wrong which may confuse the issue more. The so-called "cut & dry" version wouldn't be any safer than the present rule.

#1 more specifically then - throw is high, 1B jumps in air trying to reach the ERRANT throw and lands on the colored base - rule simply states drawn to - there is no clarification as to what constitutes an errant throw.

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.

This interpretation is supported by the 2005-06 Casebook plays 8.2.40 & 8.2.41.

It ("drawn into "foul territory" means off the base and would require the fielder to come back to the base") is really an extension of the ball coming from foul ground originally, like a passed ball fielded by the catcher, as in both cases the 1st base fielder ends up on the foul side of the base.

Reread this. It doesn't say an errant throw pulling the defense to the orange bag, it says to foul ground. The rule is NOT intended to reward the defense for a bad throw, by making first base bigger. It does mean to retain the safety feature, by allowing a fielder drawn into foul territory to return to the closer bag, and not require crossing paths with the runner.

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

It is no different now. As a young player, you were probably using a rock that you found just sitting at the entrance to your cave ;) Also, as a young player, you were probably told to forget the base, just make sure the ball doesn't get by you.

F3 still has the same mechanic and the same size base to touch. The runner can still run to the inside of the line. The only thing that has changed is that there is now a 15" in foul territory of which the defense would like to take advantage.

Your concern is noted, but you are not going to get me on your side because I think the DB should be abandoned.

Quote:

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

Been there, done that, and you are not going to get that call. As the book states, the defender needs to come back to the base. If you have time to think about just lifting your foot above the base, the throw cannot be that errant. If you had the same discussion with Henry as I, he probably told you an "errant" throw is one which cannot be caught. In your sly act above, you catch the ball.