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

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

A play at first base is a force.

And that says all we need to hear. Reread your definition of "Force Play" and then tell us again why you think a play at 1B (assumedly on BR) is a force. It's not. It's very similar, but it's not a force.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve orignally posted on 1/22/06

Yesterday, Craig Cress came to Atlanta, Georgia for a rules clinic. Obviously, the new double first base rule was discussed.

Per Craig (and he is now the top rules guy in ASA), the new rule is the same for both offense and defense. Even though the wording in the rule doesn't spell it out vis-a-vis the defense, once the batter-runner passes first base for the first time, there is now a 15x30 double base that both runner and defense may use to make a play.

Example play, R1 on 1st, steals on the pitch, batter hits fly ball down the right field line. RF makes the catch, and throws back to 1B to double off R1, who is returning to tag up. 1B can stretch from the orange bag, and make the out from that bag.

Again, Craig recognized that the wording in the rule book doesn't state the defense can use either bag, just the offense. However, he stated that was the intent of the rule, and that nothing in the rule as currently written would contradict that intent.

Here is the thread:
ASA Double Base Rule

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

Please don't back me into a corner and make me defend him! I believe the answer to your question - "What is the purpose of rule 8.2.4.m?" IS "Safety" The purpose of the base in the first place is safety, yes... but without this rule, it is no longer safe, as BR would HAVE to cross F3 (and vice versa) to reach the bases they were required to reach. WITH this rule, they no longer have to - which is why I would say that the reason for this rule is quite simply safety.

And this is why I asked you which question you were really after. Because it was obvious from your response to Pianoboy that you really weren't asking that, even though that is what he was answering.

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.

By clinic, by interpretation, and by usage, yes. I believe Mike was probably only pointing out that this interp was actually not rule-based. Only usage/clinic based, although I think he only muddied the issue by saying so, as 100% of the clinics I've attended that addressed this said what you said.

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.

Yeah - I hate the inconsistency too. 8-2-M-4 doesn't apply to anyone but the BR, and BR can't be forced. You are right that the use of that word in this rule was technically a mistake.

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.

As I stated above, I agree with you. You also muddied the conversation by bringing in the side issue dealing with R - which doesn't apply to this rule at all.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

And that says all we need to hear. Reread your definition of "Force Play" and then tell us again why you think a play at 1B (assumedly on BR) is a force. It's not. It's very similar, but it's not a force.

Because it is treated like a force in all circumstances by ASA. I seem to recall that it is the ASA interpretation that the BR who overruns 1B can re-instate the force by overrunning back in the other direction toward home. IOW, the defense can retire the BR in that circumstance by merely tagging the base. I don't have time now to try to look this up... does anyone else remember this? We discussed it a year or two ago on this board.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

And that says all we need to hear. Reread your definition of "Force Play" and then tell us again why you think a play at 1B (assumedly on BR) is a force. It's not. It's very similar, but it's not a force.

The rulesmakers chose that language. A batter/runner is put out at first base in the same manner as a baserunner who is forced to a base when the batter becomes a runner. In this case the rulesmakers saw no distinction between the definition of "force play" and a play at first base prior to the runner getting to the bag used the term to make the rule clear and understandable.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

In this case the rulesmakers saw no distinction between the definition of "force play" and a play at first base prior to the runner getting to the bag used the term to make the rule clear and understandable.

And you know this...how?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

The rulesmakers chose that language.

Are you making my point or yours?

A batter/runner is put out at first base in the same manner as a baserunner who is forced to a base when the batter becomes a runner.

Yes ... and so is an appeal for leaving early or missing a base. You calling those forces too? Hope not. The fact that it LOOKS like a force doesn't mean it IS a force.

[Dakota]

When ASA uses the term "force out at first" they mean the BR advancing to first. Simple as that. You guys can argue angels on the head of a pin about the purist approach to the definitions, but that is the fact.

Take this argument back to OBR where it belongs. JMO.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Are you making my point or yours?

Yes ... and so is an appeal for leaving early or missing a base. You calling those forces too? Hope not. The fact that it LOOKS like a force doesn't mean it IS a force.

Rule 8 2, m4

"On any force out attempt from the foul side of first base the defense and the batter-runner may use either the white or colored portion of the base."

That is the only referenece to a force out in the rule.

An appeal for missing the double base is covered in m, 3. According to interpretations you and others have been told at clinics a return to touch after a caught fly can be successful at either part of the bag. Niether situation is called a force.

I don't know why the term "force out" in m, 4 should cause any confusion, since it is useful in describing the scenario.

The rulesmakers chose the term "force out" for a reason. To parse that language and compare it to the meaing of "force out" in other parts of the book is to miss the forest for the trees.

[mcrowder]

As Dakota correctly points out, this is really meaningless semantics, in that the way a force play and a play on BR at first base are treated the same. I agree with that, and I think we both understand the rule.

However, this particular rule is the ONLY place where such a play is refered to this way, and it is this that Wade was pointing out as an error.

If a play on BR at first was TRULY a force play, the definition of "force play" would need to be rewritten to include BR, and the 2 or 3 spots in the book that mention "On a force play or on a play on BR at first base" would simply need to change to "on a force play".

You can continue to argue that because of THIS rule referring to a play on BR at first as a force play, then a play on BR IS a force play. It's weak logic... but my logic for saying it's NOT a force play because in other places in the book ASA intentionally mentions them separately is exactly as weak, with the only real difference between my argument and yours being found in the definition of "Force Play".

Honestly, it's a silly argument. And you probably agree. So lets let it die.

[SRW]

I just received this email from our Regional UIC... (this should be posted on ASA's website under the Rules Clarifications later this week.) I think it helps to clarify the question, even though it relates to the fourth out appeal:

Fourth Out Appeal Rule Clarification

A question arose regarding the possibility of allowing a fourth out appeal on the batter-runner who misses or does not reach first base in order to call a force out for the third out of a half inning, and thereby keeping a run from scoring. Rule 5, Section 5 C states, “No run shall score if a “fourth out” is the result of an appeal of a base missed or left too soon on a runner who has scored.” With this in mind, the batter-runner would be the last runner to score in any fourth out situation, therefore the fourth out appeal can not apply to the batter-runner.

Play: R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B with two outs. B3 gets a base hit to right field where F9 fields the ball and throws to home plate to retire R2 for the third out. R1 scored from 3B and B3 is advancing to 2B when the defense appeals that B3 missed 1B for the fourth out appeal and thereby nullifying the run by R1.
Ruling: The appeal should not be honored. By rule (Rule 5, Section 5 C), because R2 was called out at home plate for the third out the batter-runner missing 1B can not be appealed. R1’s run counts and the half inning is over.

Play: R1 on 3B and R2 on 2B with two outs. B3 strikes out but the catcher drops the third strike and ball rolls to the back stop. R1 scores and R2 is thrown out at home plate for the third out. B3, seeing that R2 was thrown out at the plate, stops running short of reaching 1B. The defense noticed that B3 did not reach 1B and throws the ball to 1B to retire B1.
Ruling: Because R2 is the third out, the live ball appeal at 1B should not be honored. The half inning is over and R1’s run counts.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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



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".

The obvious answer to this question is yes.

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

Covered this already.

Good enough, thanks mike. You threw me when you asked the question.

If it wasnt for stuff like this, we wouldnt need new rules edition everyear, I suppose.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Here is the thread:
ASA Double Base Rule

Like I said, "proper interpretation". Not everyone gets to speak to my good buds (who usually run the other way when they see me ).

Hopefully, it will be added in some manner next year.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

When ASA uses the term "force out at first" they mean the BR advancing to first. Simple as that. You guys can argue angels on the head of a pin about the purist approach to the definitions, but that is the fact.

Take this argument back to OBR where it belongs. JMO.

I happen to agree - someday ASA will catch up and update the force out definition to match the usage of "force" in their rules and common usage by everyone in the game.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I happen to agree - someday ASA will catch up and update the force out definition to match the usage of "force" in their rules and common usage by everyone in the game.

If there was ever much ado about nothing this would be it.