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

[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?

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

[jimpiano]

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?

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

To avoid collision and injury when the play causes the fielder to be in foul territory

i.e ball hits the white base and bounds into foul territory,
ball is booted by first baseman into foul territory, etc

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

To avoid collision and injury when the play causes the fielder to be in foul territory

i.e ball hits the white base and bounds into foul territory,
ball is booted by first baseman into foul territory, etc

whatchu talkin bout willis?

[jimpiano]

you asked "but then why does 8.2.M.4 exist at all?"

I said to avoid collisions and injuries when the play is in foul territory. That rule allows the fielder to touch the orange and the runner to choose.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

you asked "but then why does 8.2.M.4 exist at all?"

I said to avoid collisions and injuries when the play is in foul territory. That rule allows the fielder to touch the orange and the runner to choose.

That scenario is not a force. That scenario is a live ball appeal. Live ball appeal is not mentioned in the Double base rules.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

That scenario is not a force. That scenario is a live ball appeal. Live ball appeal is not mentioned in the Double base rules.

Both scenarios I mentioned are live ball forces.

Batted ball hits white portion of base and bounds into foul territory where F3 fields it......rule 8.2.4m allows fielder to touch orange portion of first base and the runner to use the white portion. The reason is to prevent a collision and possible injury, a rule change in 2006.

Same scenario would apply if the fielder booted a fair ball into foul territory and retrieved it.

[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.

[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.

[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 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

[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.

[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.