You make the call - double base

[mcrowder]

I don't see how you can call this runner out. Consider the normal scenario - BR hits white bag and runs through. Fielder immediately gets ball, touches bag, looks to BU and says, "Appeal, she hit the wrong bag." Assuming this appeal occurred before BR returns to EITHER part of the bag, she's out. I think we agree on that.

In this sitch, BR hits white bag and stops. Fielder immediately gets the ball, touches bag, looks to BU and says the same thing. I don't see how you could call this appeal out - as the BR is already on the base she would normally have to return to.

To those advocating the out ... what if the appeal was 2 seconds later? 4 seconds? 15 seconds? Where's the line? What if the ball was caught by F3, thrown elsewhere for a play, thrown to F1, then thrown back to F3 and then they appeal. You still have an out? If so ... really?!?!! If not ... since BR has done nothing different here than in the original sitch, why the different call?

And also, to those advocating the out - what exactly would you say BR can do, if she (or basecoach) realizes the mistake before the fielders to, to fix the appeal. Does she have to step off and then back on? If so ... will you allow her to do this if the ball is in the circle?

[Dakota]

I'm with you, mccrowder. I understand the literal rule reading here, and I am generally inclined to go that way unless or until there is an official interpretation, but I do not see how you can rule a runner out on appeal for missing the base she is standing on at the time. I know the safety base rule and all that, but there she is, plain as day, standing on the base she is obligated to return to after missing the base she was supposed to touch.

Barring a ruling from ASA (or whoever), this is safe.

[CecilOne]

I think some are missing the point that regardless of overrun or dead stop, the BR has not legally "reached" the base, so "returning" is not an issue. All the BR has to do to avoid the appeal out is slide a foot over to the safety base.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I think some are missing the point that regardless of overrun or dead stop, the BR has not legally "reached" the base, so "returning" is not an issue. All the BR has to do to avoid the appeal out is slide a foot over to the safety base.

Has a BR who stands there straddling the white base legally acheived 1B? Sure, unless successfully appealed. This particular appeal must be a live ball appeal and must be executed before the BR touches the base. When the live ball appeal happens, would you honor the appeal if the straddling BR had already moved her trailing foot onto the white base? She has never overrun the base, and has not returned to it, but she is now in contact with it.

I do understand the argument you are making. All I am saying is I do not see how it is possible to honor a live ball appeal for missing the base the runner is standing on. Once the play at 1B was made the double base becomes one single base. She can touch either end or anywhere in between.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I think some are missing the point that regardless of overrun or dead stop, the BR has not legally "reached" the base, so "returning" is not an issue. All the BR has to do to avoid the appeal out is slide a foot over to the safety base.

So she has to LEAVE the base she's standing on ... and return?

Since you're an advocate for an appeal out here ... what would your answers to my questions above be?

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

So she has to LEAVE the base she's standing on ... and return?

Since you're an advocate for an appeal out here ... what would your answers to my questions above be?

No one has to "leave" anything,,,just put a foot on the colored bag beforfe the appeal.

Since the overriding argument on most threads here is that the rules are meant to be followed then this is one where the literal reading of the double base rule would result in a successful appeal.

Having said that, I would not honor the appeal and argue that the runner clipped a portion of the colored base.

[rwest]

The rule simply states that if the runner only touches the white portion of first base and there is a play from fair territory, the runner can be called out on appeal. The rule does not state that the batter-runner has to overrun the bag.

The rule then goes on to give us a time interval for honoring this appeal. The interval ends when the runner returns to the base. The beginning of the interval is implied to be the time the runner touched only the white portion of the base.

So you have to separate the rule infraction from the interval for honoring the appeal. The infraction is touching only the white portion when a play is made at first base from fair territory. The interval is from the time of the infraction to the runner returning to the base.

In the OP, the infraction is obvious. The interval, based on my interpreation, is obvious, too. I say the interval started the moment the infraction occurred but since the runner never left the base, the only way to terminate the interval is by the next pitch (legal/illegal).

If they appeal before then, I've got an out.

Any holes in my interpretation?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

Any holes in my interpretation?

Yes, what I said before... you are ruling a runner out on appeal for missing the base she is standing on at the time of the appeal. Barring an official interp from ASA, I just cannot agree with that based on the notion that the runner having missed the orange must "return" to the white within a defined "interval". The interval is prior to the appeal. She is there prior to the appeal.

This is an anomoly due to the wording of the double base rule, and I am not honoring an appeal based on such a notion (short of, as I said, an official interp from ASA).

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by rwest

The interval is from the time of the infraction to the runner returning to the base.

I say the interval started the moment the infraction occurred but since the runner never left the base, the only way to terminate the interval is by the next pitch (legal/illegal).

If the runner did overrun, when would the interval end?

When the runner touched the white portion of the bag.

So why would you rule differently in the OP, and end the interval potentially tens of seconds later?

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Yes, what I said before... you are ruling a runner out on appeal for missing the base she is standing on at the time of the appeal. Barring an official interp from ASA, I just cannot agree with that based on the notion that the runner having missed the orange must "return" to the white within a defined "interval". The interval is prior to the appeal. She is there prior to the appeal.

This is an anomoly due to the wording of the double base rule, and I am not honoring an appeal based on such a notion (short of, as I said, an official interp from ASA).

Well then.

That settles that.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Yes, what I said before... you are ruling a runner out on appeal for missing the base she is standing on at the time of the appeal. Barring an official interp from ASA, I just cannot agree with that based on the notion that the runner having missed the orange must "return" to the white within a defined "interval". The interval is prior to the appeal. She is there prior to the appeal.

This is an anomoly due to the wording of the double base rule, and I am not honoring an appeal based on such a notion (short of, as I said, an official interp from ASA).

First off all this is not an appeal for missing a base. This is an appeal for touching the wrong portion of the base. However, lets assume that it is. What base did they miss? The orange part of first base. What part is the batter-runner standing on in the OP? The white portion. So using the aforementioned logic, they are not standing on the base they missed.

The batter-runner is guilty of an infraction. They've done nothing to correct it. In the example of missing a base, the runner has to do something to rectify the situation. They have to go back and touch the base they missed. In this scenario the runner has done nothing to correct his mistake.

Using your interpretation, you can never call a batter-runner out on appeal who runs to and stops on the white portion of the bag when a play is made at first base from fair territory (I'm not including interference because Mike tolds us not to go there. :-) ). This negates the rule entirely.

I agree that the rule could have been worded better and that there is an anomaly that we have to reason out. However, I believe an out is the correct call based on my interpretation of the rule.

Just my opinion.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

If the runner did overrun, when would the interval end?

When the runner touched the white portion of the bag.

So why would you rule differently in the OP, and end the interval potentially tens of seconds later?

If you don't honor the appeal when the runner runs to and stops on the white portion of the base, without touching the orange, then you have negated the rule. You are allowing the runner to touch the white portion only and preventing the defense from getting the out on an appeal. The runner did nothing to correct their mistake. Do you allow the defense 10 seconds to get an appeal on a missed base or one left too soon? Sure you do because the rules allow it. They have until the next pitch. Or the runner has to return to the base missed or left too soon before the appeal. In other words they have to correct their mistake.

The rule states an obvious end to the appeal interval. They haven't returned to the base due to the fact that, as others have mentioned, they never left the base. But that doesn't negate the infraction. The returning to the base is just the end of the appeal.

Edited to add one final comment.

To answer your question, the appeal would end when the runner "returned to the base", not when he is touching it. If we are going to literally interpret the rule, then we must use the words that the rule book uses. It doesn't say the appeal ends when the runner is touching the base, but when they return.

[AtlUmpSteve]

It pains me to have to agree with Jimpiano and rwest. The fact is that the batter-runner failed to touch the orange base, and the defense is entitled to the appeal remedy. As in all other missed bases, the opportunity for a live ball appeal is limited; it ends when the runner remedies. The remedy is specific and requires an action; to return.

So, the batter-runner (and any other runner) who missed the base has a burden of responsibility. Just as we deny a passive inadvertant accidental live ball appeal, so must we deny a passive remedy, when the runner has not remedied. I would accept a slide to orange, I would accept a step off and back on (and would not invoke the "gotcha" of the lookback rule, anymore than one who steps two inches off to fix her socks).

Before the rule was changed to the "one big base" theory, I think we all would have honored this as an appeal. Well, maybe not. But, that change was for runners and fielders, not to expand the base for the batter-runner. We shouldn't use that change to expand the batter-runner responsibility to touch the correct (orange) base.

I would not hide behind the "oh, if she touched the white, she must have touched the orange". I will call what I see, and if appealed, would rule as stated above. JMO, based on the rule as I see it.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by rwest

First off all this is not an appeal for missing a base. This is an appeal for touching the wrong portion of the base. However, lets assume that it is. What base did they miss? The orange part of first base. What part is the batter-runner standing on in the OP? The white portion. So using the aforementioned logic, they are not standing on the base they missed.

Hold on a second here. First ... it IS a missed base. In touching the wrong portion of the base, they essentially ran past the base without touching anything they were allowed to touch.

Second - in a sitch where BR runs PAST the base, they missed, as you say, the orange part of the base. HOWEVER... where do they have to return to fix it? EITHER part - not just the orange part. If they return to the white part of the bag, they have corrected their miss.

I would submit that in a case where BR goes to the wrong base but immediately stops on the white portion, they have simply immediately corrected their error.

Also consider the reason for the separate portions - safety... to prevent a collision. So even the intent of the rule is satisfied by a BR who stops immediately on the white part of the bag. The separate halves are not intended as a "Gotcha" - they are intended to prevent collisions.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

It pains me to have to agree with Jimpiano and rwest.

Why is it painful to agree with me? Have I offended you in some way?