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

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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

pfff... 90% of this forum is making much ado about nothing. Thats what makes it fun.

Dont you worry though, its basically a fairly slow board, so even with all the ado flowing around, you will still have enough time to invent your own flourishes and hand slaps for use as signals in games.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

pfff... 90% of this forum is making much ado about nothing. Thats what makes it fun.

Dont you worry though, its basically a fairly slow board, so even with all the ado flowing around, you will still have enough time to invent your own flourishes and hand slaps for use as signals in games.

Wade, sometimes you can be a real smartass, but that one made me laugh.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

pfff... 90% of this forum is making much ado about nothing. Thats what makes it fun.

Dont you worry though, its basically a fairly slow board, so even with all the ado flowing around, you will still have enough time to invent your own flourishes and hand slaps for use as signals in games.

Slow board?

If you cant fathom a force out then I would wonder about your definition of slow.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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

It's the ability to keep up with what you call ado and its proper application on the field that separates great umpires from thousands of others.

If you consider it to be much ado about nothing, well, let's see for which list you qualify.

[greymule]

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.

That's right. ASA, unlike other codes, considers the BR to have "occupied" a previous base—home. The BR can in fact reinstate the force by retreating (though he wouldn't have to overrun 1B; he could simply stop on the base and then retreat). Therefore, in ASA the out on the BR at 1B is indistinguishable from a force play and should rightly be termed such.

Since the rule change, I have treated the entire white/orange slab of the safety base as usable by either fielder or runner once the BR touches (or crosses 1B).

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Slow board?

If you cant fathom a force out then I would wonder about your definition of slow.

I like you because you dont let the rule book get in the way of what you consider "umpiring". In fact, so far you have stood firm on two positions since joining our little piece of the internets, neither of which is supported by the rule book. The rule book can be such a drag!!!111

Thats gutsy.

You keep up the good work.

[jimpiano]

"Therefore, in ASA the out on the BR at 1B is indistinguishable from a force play and should rightly be termed such."

Since the rule change, I have treated the entire white/orange slab of the safety base as usable by either fielder or runner once the BR touches (or crosses 1B).

Imagine that...applying the rule using common sense.
__________________

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Imagine that...applying the rule using common sense.

You'd be well advised to make the distinction between "common sense" meaning "what I think it should be" and "common sense" meaning "consistent with the published rule book, clinic teaching, and official interpretations."

My statements on the force play at 1B fall into the latter category, as do the treatment of the entire double base as usable by both teams.

Umpires frequently use "common sense" as the justification for making up their own rules. Not saying you are doing that, just a caution to not take what you said too far.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You'd be well advised to make the distinction between "common sense" meaning "what I think it should be" and "common sense" meaning "consistent with the published rule book, clinic teaching, and official interpretations."

My statements on the force play at 1B fall into the latter category, as do the treatment of the entire double base as usable by both teams.

Umpires frequently use "common sense" as the justification for making up their own rules. Not saying you are doing that, just a caution to not take what you said too far.

That is why I referenced Greymule.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

That is why I referenced Greymule.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, based on your more recent postings, that you were attempting to move away from trolldom. I don't know whether you are trying to insult me or greymule, but either way, I see I was wrong about you.

[greymule]

It's certainly true that "common sense" gets you only so far. We can all cite rules that are anything but common sense. To me, the one at the very top of the list is the play in ASA where the batting team benefits when the BR deliberately interferes with F3 on a pop fly.

Under no other code (that I know of) can that happen.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by greymule

It's certainly true that "common sense" gets you only so far. We can all cite rules that are anything but common sense. To me, the one at the very top of the list is the play in ASA where the batting team benefits when the BR deliberately interferes with F3 on a pop fly.

Under no other code (that I know of) can that happen.

If you're calling an ASA game, and the BR does this, do you follow "common sense" or the ASA book?

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, based on your more recent postings, that you were attempting to move away from trolldom. I don't know whether you are trying to insult me or greymule, but either way, I see I was wrong about you.

I quoted Greymule as a compliment to him.

I replied to your advice by referencing Greymule's post as demonstrating that the rule book and common sense are intertwined.

I don't how you could interpret the post as an insult, but since you did, I apologize.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

I quoted Greymule as a compliment to him.

I replied to your advice by referencing Greymule's post as demonstrating that the rule book and common sense are intertwined.

I don't how you could interpret the post as an insult, but since you did, I apologize.

Apology accepted. Sorry to have misunderstood, but in my defense... well, nevermind.

The rule book and common sense are intertwined, but the rulings made cannot be contradictory to the rule book. Common sense should be an extension of the known, not a replacement of it.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by greymule

It's certainly true that "common sense" gets you only so far. We can all cite rules that are anything but common sense. To me, the one at the very top of the list is the play in ASA where the batting team benefits when the BR deliberately interferes with F3 on a pop fly.

Under no other code (that I know of) can that happen.

What play are you talking about?