ASA Double Base - Purpose of 8.2.M.4.?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

I dont care if you believe me or not.

But I am correct.

Its not the point of the my post or question. I know ASA is incorrectly using the term force in the rule, _THAT IS_ the point of my post and the point of the discussion, carried over from ezteams.. which I would rather have here as there are 57 yous on ezteams.

Youre off in never never land.

I'll type slowly.

ASA is seemingly using a laymens definition of force in this rule.

If they are using a "laymens/jimpiano/coach type force" in the rule, it would seem to me that it should, by intent and spirit of the rule, apply it to the live ball appeal.

If they ARENT using the laymens definition, then the rule makes no sense, as there is no force at 1B ever.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Runner is out
- On any force out attempt from the foul side of first base the D and the O may use either portion of the base.

I understood this to mean the "common/lay" use of the term "Force Out" (as ASA uses elsewhere as well) as opposed to the specific written Force out definition, which would make the above make no sense.

How I understood it from the 06 Clinic was for all intents and purposes the base becomes one base once the B/R situation was resolved and my hand out from 06 seems to indicate this as well.

ie.. from EZ Teams scenario - R1@1B - Liner caught by diving F3 who lands in foul territory. Can they use orange to make the out on R1 tagging up?

-----------------

If that is not allowed by rule, which I agree strictly written rules (and common sense) do not allow it.. but then why does 8.2.M.4 exist at all?

Let's start by realizing that any restriction on the use of a double base only applies to executing a play on the BR. There are no such restrictions when making any other play.

How do you have a "definition force" at 1B?
You can have a "layman" force at 1B.

Yes, the term as defined is specific, yet used as a matter of convenience and brevity. Speaking of common sense, just think about the differences between a runner and a BR. Are not both required to advance to the next base to avoid being retired due to the batter becoming a BR? Can both not be put out by either a tag of the player or the base to which they are required to advance?

The only real difference is that in the BR's case, the "force" can never be relieved for any reason as there is no trailing runner or base to which s/he can retreat to avoid being put out.

[jimpiano]

Maybe it is helpful to look at the double base rule.

It was adopted to prevent collisions and injuries on the play at first base. The batter-runner is the only offensive player required to use the colored portion of the double bag. The play is a force out, since the batter/runner need not be tagged; the batter/runner is out unless he/she gets to the base before the ball. If the batter/runner misses the colored portion or touches only the white portion and is tagged out before returning to the white or colored portion the batter/runner is out. This would be a live appeal. Rule 8 -2, m 3

So once the batter/runner reaches first base the requirement of using the colored portion is removed. 8-2, m6,7,8

If the batter/runner interferes with the fielder by using only the white portion the batter/runner is out 8-2,m9

In most cases the play at first base to attempt to put out the batter/runner involves the fielder in fair territory with the runner using the portion of the double bag in foul territory. But sometimes the play can cause the fielder to use foul territory so the rulesmakers allow the fielder and the batter/runner to switch use of the double base to prevent collisions.

You asked the reason for 8-2,m 4---that is the reason.

Similarly 8-2, m 5 allows the same choices on a throw that forces the fielder to the foul side of first base.

In any event the words force play describe how the out is made at first base.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Let's start by realizing that any restriction on the use of a double base only applies to executing a play on the BR. There are no such restrictions when making any other play.[/b]

and after that, it becomes one base.

So, in the OP scenario is that out our safe?

On ezteams you definitely implied by your question, it was not allowed.

Yes, the term as defined is specific, yet used as a matter of convenience and brevity. Speaking of common sense, just think about the differences between a runner and a BR. Are not both required to advance to the next base to avoid being retired due to the batter becoming a BR? Can both not be put out by either a tag of the player or the base to which they are required to advance?

The only real difference is that in the BR's case, the "force" can never be relieved for any reason as there is no trailing runner or base to which s/he can retreat to avoid being put out.

told ya when we discussed that awhile ago, they were gonna have to fix that. You were adamant it wasnt a force. I agree, but ASA uses force (even before this rule) in the typically understood fan/coach/jimpiano manner


I'm not putting you in the spot to defend this lame rule Irish, me and you are on the same page on what we think about the double base.

But its there, so I'm just making sure I'm doing it right.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

blah blah blah

You dont understand the rules enough to even understand the discussion and as such you blah blah about nonsense.

I'm not talking about that jim.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

You dont understand the rules enough to even understand the discussion and as such you blah blah about nonsense.

I'm not talking about that jim.

Wade - maybe you should redefine your question then, as you actually asked more than one question in your OP. Jim answered one of them, but that seems to have made you angry. I grant you - Pianoman bugs the heck out of me too ... but not because of his response in THIS thread. He answered ONE of your questions.

Which question did you really want answered?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Wade - maybe you should redefine your question then, as you actually asked more than one question in your OP. Jim answered one of them, but that seems to have made you angry. I grant you - Pianoman bugs the heck out of me too ... but not because of his response in THIS thread. He answered ONE of your questions.

No he is going on and on about safety blah blah, as if I am asking about the reason for the doublebase.. which is obviously implemented for safety. I'm asking for the reasoning behind using the term "force" in 8.2.4.m inappropriately, if not to make it apply to situations like this.

Which question did you really want answered?

The thread is a carry over from ezteams where irish stated in response to umpires who were stating that the defender could use the orange bag:

Originally Posted by Irishmike

Can anyone cite an ASA rule permitting a defender to use the orange portion of the base when playing on anyone other than the BR?

So I went to my 06 Clinic notes - and that is exactly the implication of this rule - it is one base after the b/r situation is resolved and how I was enforcing it last year. I stated in my OP that I understood that the rule means for all intents and purposes, it is one base after the b/r situation.

8.2.M.4 allows defender on forces (obviously not technical definition forces, it means "force out" plays) i.e. plays where the defender must only touch the bag to get the out to use the orange bag if they are on the foul side.

But when Mike enters a convo and asks something like that, it adds a big fat shade of gray that makes it less clear... because obviously this exact situation is not covered by the rule in exact language.

[jimpiano]

I have no idea what your are asking anymore.

A play at first base is a force.
The distinctions on the use of the double base are pretty clear.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Since this thread has become so damn convoluted, let's start anew.

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Runner is out
- On any force out attempt from the foul side of first base the D and the O may use either portion of the base.

I understood this to mean the "common/lay" use of the term "Force Out" (as ASA uses elsewhere as well) as opposed to the specific written Force out definition, which would make the above make no sense.

To start, where does is state "Runner is out"? If you are referring to 8.2.M, it is the Batter-Runner, not the runner. Yes, in this instance the term "force out" is used in a common/lay manner for convenience and brevity. It should read "on any attempt to retire the batter-runner from the foul side of first base".

How I understood it from the 06 Clinic was for all intents and purposes the base becomes one base once the B/R situation was resolved and my hand out from 06 seems to indicate this as well.

ie.. from EZ Teams scenario - R1@1B - Liner caught by diving F3 who lands in foul territory. Can they use orange to make the out on R1 tagging up?

The obvious answer to this question is yes.

If that is not allowed by rule, which I agree strictly written rules (and common sense) do not allow it.. but then why does 8.2.M.4 exist at all?

Again, you are referencing a rule which applies to a BR only to that of a live ball appeal on a runner.

How do you have a "definition force" at 1B?
You can have a "layman" force at 1B.

Covered this already.

[Dakota]

In ASA rule book usage, putting the BR out prior to touching 1B is a force out. Even though a strict reading of the definition would leave some doubt on this, this is backed up by consistent ASA interpretations. I know the "is the BR 'forced' to 1B" is a never-ending source of amusement for the OBR debaters, but it really has little substance WRT ASA.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Damn, Tony deleted his message before I could respond.

But, no, you don't need to add "before the BR reaches 1B" as once the BR reaches 1B, they are no longer a BR

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

How I understood it from the 06 Clinic was for all intents and purposes the base becomes one base once the B/R situation was resolved and my hand out from 06 seems to indicate this as well.

It is my understanding that it becomes one base for ANY R, including B-R becomes R as a result of having reached 1B. Ref: Rule 8.2.M.6 Rule 8.2.M.7 and Rule 8.2.M.8.

It would probably make more sense to refer to the player who was a B-R, and has passed 1B and play has not yet ended as R0 (zero).

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

ie.. from EZ Teams scenario - R1@1B - Liner caught by diving F3 who lands in foul territory. Can they use orange to make the out on R1 tagging up?
-----------------
If that is not allowed by rule, which I agree strictly written rules (and common sense) do not allow it..

By rule, I have an OUT here. As both defense is entitled to use the whole base while making a play on R; just as R is entitled to use the whole base in baserunning. Again, ref: Rule 8.2.M.6 Rule 8.2.M.7 and Rule 8.2.M.8.

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

but then why does 8.2.M.4 exist at all?
How do you have a "definition force" at 1B?
You can have a "layman" force at 1B.

8.2.M.3 requires that defense must use white and B-R must use colored portion.

IMHO 8.2.M.4 should have been an EXCEPTION to 8.2.M.3 rather than a separate rule.

Without the EXCEPTION (aka 8.2.M.4) we would have a rule requiring B-R to be in a postion that could potentially interfere with the opportunity to put B-R out.

I don't know if this was the reason the rule was written as I was not there, but this is what makes the most logical case to me.

[jimpiano]

"IMHO 8.2.M.4 should have been an EXCEPTION to 8.2.M.3 rather than a separate rule."-TCANNIZZO

I think the reason it is not an exeption is because there are more than one exceptions

On a play on a live batted ball that forces the defender into foul territory the rule permits the BATTER/RUNNER to use the white portion and the defender the colored which is covered by 8-2, m,4

On a play where an errant throw pulls the defender into the foul side of the bag, the same applies 8-2, m, 5

I think the rulesmakers figured it was clearer this way than trying to explain two variations in one exception.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I don't believe there is anything in the book which actually states the defense may use either portion of the double base on a play not involving the BR. I believe it is simply the proper interpretation accepted by umpires.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Damn, Tony deleted his message before I could respond.

But, no, you don't need to add "before the BR reaches 1B" as once the BR reaches 1B, they are no longer a BR

READY - FIRE - AIM - DELETE