DoubleBaseQuestion

[DonP]

Greetings Umpires,
Discussion concerning the safety base insued this past weekend. I throw it out for discussion...
B1 hits a routine ground ball to the shortstop who fields clean and makes the throw slightly high to F3 who A: is standing with part of her foot on the white and part on the orange or B: has to hop up to grab the ball and comes down half on white half on orange. In both scenerios, B1 is thrown out by the throw contacting only the orange part of the base.

My question is Does contact with any part of the orange part of the base violate the rule regarding "must use the white part" by the defense
Your thoughts please!!
Thanks
Don

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DonP

Greetings Umpires,
Discussion concerning the safety base insued this past weekend. I throw it out for discussion...
B1 hits a routine ground ball to the shortstop who fields clean and makes the throw slightly high to F3 who A: is standing with part of her foot on the white and part on the orange or B: has to hop up to grab the ball and comes down half on white half on orange. In both scenerios, B1 is thrown out by the throw contacting only the orange part of the base.

My question is Does contact with any part of the orange part of the base violate the rule regarding "must use the white part" by the defense
Your thoughts please!!
Thanks
Don

The fact that F3 has any part of her foot "on" any part of either base demonstrates that she doesn't know how to play the position and, obviously the coach isn't any help. That'll teach you to ask for my thoughts

Now that I got that off my chest, the answer to your question is "no" and it works both ways. You will see many, if not most, of the adult SP BRs hit both bases simultaneously. I believe the real reason is that they are either color-blind, or not smart enough to remember which one they are supposed to hit

[Alaska Ump]

I think the way to look at your question is to consider what you would do if the orange bag did not exist.

If the fielder is touching part of the white bag and part of her foot is in foul territory, would you give her the out? Of course you would.

Now put the safety base next to the white base. Does this limit the area where the fielder can have her foot? I.e., can she still have her foot partly on the white bag and partly hanging off into foul territory, even if that part of foul territory is covered by a safety bag? I would say yes.

[DonP]

While I agree with your premise alaskaump, the difference is the orange base is a safety issue. The ASA has determined that player collisions should be avoided , hence the modification to the obstruction rule, no crashing in to a fielder with the ball, etc... The doublebase at first base is another rule that is suppose to make the game a little less riskier to play. Hence the wording the fielder must use the white base.... I agree with you mike, they should not be standing ON the base, they should be touchng the side of the base, but 12,14U are still learning the proper mechanics, thus my point, should F3 be penalized for having contact with the orange base? The rule does not say that a collision has to occur, it just says she must use the white base. There are several situations already that relieve the fielder of that requirement, IE from foul territory. But the rule says "the defense must use the white portion of the base" which means not having contact with the orange part. Yes-No??

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DonP

should F3 be penalized for having contact with the orange base?

No.

The only call here is out, unless you judge the fielder obstructed the BR before she had possession of the ball. Possible in "A", not likely in "B".

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by DonP

While I agree with your premise alaskaump, the difference is the orange base is a safety issue. The ASA has determined that player collisions should be avoided , hence the modification to the obstruction rule, no crashing in to a fielder with the ball, etc... The doublebase at first base is another rule that is suppose to make the game a little less riskier to play. Hence the wording the fielder must use the white base.... I agree with you mike, they should not be standing ON the base, they should be touchng the side of the base, but 12,14U are still learning the proper mechanics, thus my point, should F3 be penalized for having contact with the orange base? The rule does not say that a collision has to occur, it just says she must use the white base. There are several situations already that relieve the fielder of that requirement, IE from foul territory. But the rule says "the defense must use the white portion of the base" which means not having contact with the orange part. Yes-No??

If your premise were true, then we would only need a sliver of the base for the player to put their foot on, right? The entire base is there because the entire base is in play. (I hope that made as much sense as it did in my head)

[DonP]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

If your premise were true, then we would only need a sliver of the base for the player to put their foot on, right? The entire base is there because the entire base is in play. (I hope that made as much sense as it did in my head)

Larry,
I can see brain cells turning! You are right, the entire base is in play, that means both the entire orange part and the entire white part. So when a defense player is partially on the orange, they might as well be entirely on the orange. When the rule book says the defense must use the white portion that would mean they can not use the orange portion.
Which brings me back to my main point. Should a runner be called safe if the defense uses part of the orange base on a play requiring them to use only the white?

[canump]

Originally Posted by DonP

Larry,
I can see brain cells turning! You are right, the entire base is in play, that means both the entire orange part and the entire white part. So when a defense player is partially on the orange, they might as well be entirely on the orange. When the rule book says the defense must use the white portion that would mean they can not use the orange portion.
Which brings me back to my main point. Should a runner be called safe if the defense uses part of the orange base on a play requiring them to use only the white?

In using that phrase then, would you call the runner out for touching a portion of the white bag when defense is making a play. In the CSA rule book it states that a runner who touches both white & orange is considered to have touch orange and a defensive player who touches both white and orange is considered to have touch white, providing that there was no obstruction. " I don't have my rule book in front of me so some of the wording might be different but the idea is the same.

Dale

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DonP

Larry,
I can see brain cells turning! You are right, the entire base is in play, that means both the entire orange part and the entire white part. So when a defense player is partially on the orange, they might as well be entirely on the orange.

I don't follow this at all. The orange bag is not forbidden territory for the defense any more than any other part of the field is. To get the out, they must tag the white base. No where does the rule book say that the out is disallowed if they also touch the orange. The out may be disallowed if they obstruct the BR, but not for merely having the temerity to make physical contact with the sacrosanct orange bag.

Originally Posted by DonP

When the rule book says the defense must use the white portion that would mean they can not use the orange portion.

Well, yes, but that means they do not get the out of they are only touching the orange bag. They must use the white bag to get the out. See above.

Originally Posted by DonP

Which brings me back to my main point. Should a runner be called safe if the defense uses part of the orange base on a play requiring them to use only the white?

Which brings me to my main answer: NO. Find the word ONLY in the rule you are referencing. You are adding that to the rule.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by DonP

When the rule book says the defense must use the white portion that would mean they can not use the orange portion.

According to what the OP said, they DID use the white portion. They didn't use the orange portion - they touched it. The orange portion means nothing to the def. player in this sitch - if they touched the white portion before the BR touched the orange portion, while possessing the ball - I have an out.

[DonP]

Ok, I want to thank each of you for your comments and expertise in helping me explore this question. I conclude that there is no penalty to the defense for steping on the orange and white base to get an out. I have concluded that the burden to use the correct base lies with the batter-runner who must use the orange base and must avoid contact with a fielder.
Rule 8 M 3 Effect (page 108) only deals with the BR.
Rule 8 M 9 Effect (page 108) only deals with the BR
There is no effect or penalty for the defense.

IF the defense is entirely on the orange then he is not on the white. The runner would be called safe because the defense did not have the white base for the out.
thanks!
Don