Double Base - Foul Territory
 

ASA Men's 12" SP - Double Base at 1B

Batter hits a hot shot to F3 - Ball bounces off F3 into foul territory - F3 retrieves ball and dives back touching orange (foul) side of bag just ahead of BR - I call BR "OUT" - Get big argument that the fielder cannot use orange part of bag, but as I read the rule the fielder can use the orange part when making a play from foul territory.

Was I correct?

Correctomundo. (This board does not allow me to simply type "Correct." Says the post is too short. OOO board.)

Correct ruling. Force play made from foul territory.

Yeah? Oh, I guess you are right.

I guess he is:)

Affirmative. You are CORRECT!!

Just to clarify: This is not the case in NFHS. The defense may only use the orange portion of the base if a thrown from foul ground or if an errant or missed throw pulls the defensive player into foul ground. 8-10-2.

Seems to me that is exactly what everyone stated.

Editorial comment: NFHS needs to get serious about the double base, or just forget it entirely. They have been sneaking up on it for years. They finally moved it into the rule book proper, but left it as by state association adoption. I don't know if that means they also do not think it completely through, but if your interp is correct for NFHS (I agree it is how the rule reads), then I guess they want the players crossing paths in this situation.

I wouldn't doubt that the reason the Fed is slow moving to completely accept it is because they fear "forcing" schools to buy new equipment and the thousand excuses why it cannot happen here or there.

The thread started with the situation of a batted ball bouncing off F3 into foul territory. According to NFHS rules, the use of the orange bag by the defense is only mentioned along with a throw by the defense.

I guess that's like the difference between an overthrow and the ball getting away from a fielder making a play.

Let's write a rule, preferably copied verbatim from PONY except saying "foul-side, outside or colored" instead of "orange" and add it to the list WMB was going to present.

What can I say, you're dealing with NFHS

Could someone briefly explain what the orange base is? My 10-year-old daughter is playing softball for the first time and I've never seen the "double" base at first before. And, of course, I was asked to coach first base last game.

What is its purpose? Is either part supposed to be in foul territory? Does the runner have to stay on the white part? If not, doesn't that give them an extra step toward second base? Can the ball pass over either part and still be fair?

I know nothing here, so help me out please? Thanks.

Here it is in a nutshell and I'm the nut. Most have been mentioned earlier in the thead. Foget the orange to determine fair or foul. White part in fair territory. Plays at first, white used by the defense, orange offense, except as previously mentioned. On a routine play, defense on the white, the runner must touch the orange. If not then the defense can appeal missing the base. Balls hit, and no play at first, the runner can touch either color. When returning to the base, the runner can use either color. ASA rules

The "normal" first base is still where it always is. When looking at it from home plate, the right edge is also the edge of fair territory. There is then a second "bag" touching this right edge of the normal base. This second bag is completely in foul territory, abutted to the first base and neon orange in color.

It is basically positioned so that on regular plays there will be less collisions, since the the fielder will touch the white base and the runner can touch the orange. Confusion sometimes occurs with the rulings when "regular plays" do not happen.

Strange statements from the FED basher - When it is you that has repeatedly stated that you don't like the double first base; you don't think that it makes the game safer; and you would just a soon it disappear.

Actually, I think that you and the NFHS are in agreement on this issue; the NFHS does not want to make the double first base part of their game. BUT - they have to recognize that some H.S. games are played at REC fields where both bases have been installed. The DFB was approved by ASA in '94 and soon after the NFHS allowed it to be used in H.S. games. If it was used in a game, we had to explain the ASA rules to the coaches and some players in the pre-game conference.

In 2006 the NFHS created a new section (8-10) to list the ASA DFB rules. (Of course, ASA changed their rules in 2006, so now the NFHS will have to catch up in 2007.)

A few simple case plays were added to the 2006 Casebook, but they do not recognize the ASA errant throw interpretation. And that is what this thread is about. There is NO difference between the ASA and NFHS rules. However, ASA umpires have the infamous Henry Pollard interpretation of an errant throw. An NFHS umpire not aware of this interpretation might use the Webster definition of errant and come up with a very different view of a play with a bad throw.

I have submitted the Pollard interpretation to the NFHS committee for consideration this summer. If they approve it, they have been asked to write a caseplay to define it to NFHS umpires.

WMB

My comment was based strictly from a financial view of why the Fed may not "force" the double base upon the local associations.

My feelings about the validity of it's existence remains the same.

Thanks to rodan and SC Ump. So half the base is in foul territory. Ok. I assume then that a ground ball must pass over the "normal" part of the base to be fair. Passing over the other half would make it foul. Correct?

[QUOTE=ChuckElias]Could someone briefly explain what the orange base is? My 10-year-old daughter is playing softball for the first time and I've never seen the "double" base at first before. And, of course, I was asked to coach first base last game.

What is its purpose?

<b>Supposedly a safety issue.</b>

Is either part supposed to be in foul territory?


<b>Yes, the orange colored portion.</b>


Does the runner have to stay on the white part?

<b>Yes, Once she has reached 1st, yes she must be positioned on the white portion. </b>


If not, doesn't that give them an extra step toward second base?

<b>No extra step, the white portion is in fair territory in same position as if utilizing one base.</b>

Can the ball pass over either part and still be fair?

<b>Must pass over the white portion which is in fair ground.</b>

QUOTE]

Yes, the ball must pass over or hit some part of the the normal part of the base to be fair. The orange bag is in foul territory. Also, on thing to remember is that the orange base is considered to "disappear" after that first play. For purposes of the look back rule, tagging up on a fly ball or all subsequent plays, the white part of the base is the only part valid.

FYI (sorry for the "b" word) In the history of baseball, we find that the bases were originally centered on a 90' square, causing them to be split in fair and foul territories. Because of the problems this caused, the 'foul' edges of home "circular" plate were chopped off giving it it's current point. (At some time before or after this, home went from round to square.) Also, first and thrid were moved so that the center of he base was no longer at the 90' mark, but not the furtherest outside corner is. Second base is the only one retaining it's original placement and shape. Softball bases not have this same layout pattern.

Or at least this baseball fact is what I heard on PBS.

ASA changed the rule this year. Check which rules you are playing by. In ASA once the BR has reached 1B. The doule base becomes 1 whole base. The runner can retun to either part.

Hi,

To date, the Softball Canada rule book does not include the "... fielder can use the orange part when making a play from foul territory ..." rule.

Note, however, that I was at a mechanics clinic Saturday where the clinician mentioned that one of our provinces, British Columbia, is now deviating via special operating rule and allows that play from the foul side.

I guess the hope is the B-R will use the white bag to avoid a collision.

If I had a vote, I'd remove that foul side provision.

Regards, bobbrix

Why? .....

I haven't seen the play used, since we don't allow it ... but, if the intent is to reduce collisions, then does it achieve that goal?

It seems to me the "more skilled" players would actually use it for that purpose because they can think ahead based on at-a-glance situations, but for the younger ones it would just lead to them getting in the way more often.

I have this picture in my head of B-R barreling down to first base and F3 not paying enough attention to where B-R is headed (and vice versa) ... more and more occurrences of obstruction/interference arguments because of lazy F3's ???

After all these years we still have trouble training people on the initial rules for the double base ... now they're just adding more scenarios and thereby adding more confusion.

I'm willing to be converted!

Am I wrong?

Over ... bobbrix

If you accept the premise that the double-base at first actually is useful in minimizing collisions at first (at debatable point to some on this board), then you would want the rules constructed to provide for that while minimizing (also) providing an advantage to either the offense or defense that they would not otherwise have with a single base.

If the play is coming back to the base from foul territory, and you prohibit the defense from using the orange base, then you are requiring the defensive player to cross the base path of the runner to get to the white base.

While it is true that allowing the defense in these situations to use the orange base gives them a small advantage, the judgment of the ASA rule writers must have been that the resulting safety improvement was worth it.

OTOH, in the case of allowing the defense to use the base for extra stretch room on a bad throw, this gives the defense a significant advantage.

BTW, to that end, I think the 2006 ASA changes are wrong-headed. They compromise safety for the dubious reason of dumbing down the rule to help the, well, dumb.

Hey, HEY!!! You talkin bout me? Are you talkin bout ME?

. . . ;) . . . . .