Sorry for the poor choice of words. You have not offended me. You have gone off on a few tangents in prior threads, but nothing that was a personal matter. Those have been civil discussions, and your viewpoints have been supportable, even if incorrect. There are times I think you perhaps might step back and try harder to understand the viewpoints of a few of us who are in the rules process, where we have insight you may not see in the final wording; but, that is not a reason for me to be offended, nor to intentionally insult you. You are grouped, in this case, by your responses to this thread.

On the other hand, I have consciously avoided addressing any thread where Jimpiano has acted the part of a troll. This time, I somewhat agree with his interpretation of the rule, although not his stated remedy. So, agreeing with him (and thus, you) pains me. I feel the need to contribute this time, despite wanting to avoid his threads, because I see a slide toward what I believe to be the wrong interpretation.

Well Good
 

I'm glad I have not offended. As to your criticism of me, it was well founded. I remember one thread where we disagreed. However, that was before I knew who you were. That was before I realized you had insights I did not. Once I realized your were part of or close to the rules process I changed my opinion. As I have stated in the past, the only way I have to determine the intent of the rules is to read the rule book, case book and attend clinics/camps. I do all of these to improve my understanding of the rules. By the way, I've been to a couple of clinics and camps where you were an instructor. I also come to this web sight to learn from others. So when you mention the intent of the governing body, that holds a lot of weight with me and I have to change my opinion. Its similar to disagreeing with God. One of you is wrong and it aint God.

No, it's not. The white and orange are treated as separate bags until the runner has reached the base. Then it is one big bag. That is even how they worded it in the rules clinic/camp I attended last year.

Correct, they can RETURN to either the orange or white once they've reached first base. Once they reach first base it is treated as one big base. But they didn't return. They stayed on the portion of the base that the were not allowed to touch.

The wrong base and the white portion are one and the same. They have not corrected anything. They have not done anything but continue to violate the rule. They went to the wrong part of the base and did nothing to correct it. By your interpretation the following has occurred:

1. The runner is allowed to violate the rule and not make any attempt to correct their mistake. As in your missing base analogy, the base they missed is the orange. They've not returned to the missed base.

2. You don't allow the defense a chance to appeal.

I repeated the same arguments to our association umps. They, to a man,could not refute the reasoning you and I have used to uphold an appeal. They also,to a man,said they would never call the runner out.

This kind of reasoning, in legal circles, is called jury nullification of a law.

It is also the likely result of trying to contruct a rule to prevent injury while winking at common sense.

Fortunately the situation most likely to cause a controversy is rare, since most batter runners do not stop at the bag and, even more rarely, slide into first base.

But this exercise is useful in understanding why the letter of the rule is sometimes ignored while casting no umpire in a bad light for doing so.

I've stated my view on this clearly and see no need to rehash in response to the rehashes. However, I do want to address a couple of points:

1) If the BR touches the white base when she should have used the orange, it is treated exactly the same as a missed base. Exactly the same.

2) Once the BR has achieved 1B, it is one base. One base. Touching either is the same. There is not a white or orange side anymore.

3) Ruling on this situation as I have stated does not COMPLETELY negate the rule. That is clear hyperbole, rwest. In fact, the situation described here is rare. The vast majority of the time where the BR touching white when she should touch orange is an overrun (run through) of first base where this little debate is obviously completely moot, and where the rule does apply.

4) I have stated several times already that I am open to an ASA interp that disagrees with my application here, and since Mike posted the OP, I suspect such an interp may exist. If so, I hope he posts it once he tires of reading the ruckus he started.

5) However, what I am NOTopen to, which several of you are not only open to be stating as your preferred applicaiton on the field, is to say the ruling should be to honor the appeal, but you will make up a mythical touch of the orange because you disagree with the ruling. That, my friends, is just plain dishonest umpiring.

So...what about to a woman?

Please, please, tell me there's no double fist pumps....:eek:




;)

My thougts exactly.

Why wait for an interpretation from the ASA or Irish Mafia?
You clearly see what many others do not and for adopting a different view the other umpires are declared "dishonest" by you.

Heaven forbid that any of us mortals ever run afoul of your clear moral superiority ever again.

Some people apparently have trouble reading or just like to make up their own things to argue about.

Jim ... the mere fact that Mike posted the question in the first place almost ensures us that the rule is not clear on the issue.

I believe that EITHER interpretation can be supported by the rules. To insist otherwise is either blind or obtuse. The question here is - what is RIGHT.

Since the majority of the posters who believe this should be an out admit that they would squirrel their view so that they didn't "see" the miss leads me to infer that those umpires know what is "Right" and are only arguing the other side for debate's sake.

Because we actually give a $h!+ about calling the game correctly, not making up our own interpretations of what we think should be right and wrong.
Where the fcuk did this come from?
Moral superiority? Again, where the fcuk did this come from?

Not everyone took that position, Tom. Not sure if rwest addressed it or not, but when I agreed that I would honor an appeal lacking an action by the runner to remedy the missed base, I clearly stated I disagreed with the other's statement he would honor the appeal, but rule "safe" on a mythical touch of orange.

I agree. Don't make up a touch of the orange bag just to call the runner safe. You either agree that to honor the appeal is the right thing to do and do it or you don't and disallow the appeal. Don't agree that the appeal is allowable but then call them safe because of a "mythical" touch of the orange base.

Call what you see and enforce the rules. Now, we disagree on what the rule supports, but that's another posting for another day.

I know. Yes, you are making the ruling as you understand the rules. However, those that believed that recognizing the appeal was the correct ruling, but disagreed with the ruling and would therefore "see" a touch of the orange base, THOSE people are not calling according to the rules (as they understand them) merely because they don't like the rule. Dishonest umpiring is about as mild a way I can describe that.

Dakota et al,

I see your point and admit you have strong agruments for your position. I believe I have just as equally strong arguments for allowing the appeal.
Both sides rely on the missed bag analogy to support there position. The camp that says disallow the appeal does so because they are on the base that they've missed. How can you call someone out for missing a base that they are standing on? However, I don't agree that they are on the base that they've missed. They missed the orange bag, not the white. The bases are separate. But it has been argued that once they've obtained first base it is one big bag. This is true. But is this not in reference to returning to the base? Upon returning they can go to either the white or the orange. I do not recall the rule book allowing the runner to go to either portion accept upon returning once they've obtained first base. The double base becomes one big bag for purposes of returning to the base. I submit to you that on their first attempt at first base the runner must go to the orange and that only on returning can they go to either. Also in every case of a missed base, the runner has to do something to rectify the situation. They've have to return. In this scenario, the runner has to do nothing. It doesn't match the analogy.

Another argument to disallow the appeal is that the intent of the rule is to avoid injury. I agree with this, but to allow an exception to the rule, that I don't believe currently exists, puts us on a slippery slope. It now opens up exceptions where there is no possibility of injury. This waters down the rule and requires a judgement call from the umpire that I don't believe the rule intended. Are you going to allow the appeal when the first baseman is pulled off the bag and the runner overruns first base only touching the white? Assume that the runner was pulled off into fair territory away from the bag. There was no interference and no possibility of injury in this example. Allow or disallow the appeal?

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Respectfully!
Randall

Edited to Add this comment from another thread....didn't want to highjack

Dakota said....

In no case can a runner be appealed for leaving early or missing the base she is standing on when the live ball appeal is made. (In the case of the double base situation, the crux of the disagreement was is standing on the white base the same as being on the base missed; IOW, the BR can "return" to the white to negate the miss of the orange, but... well, that is for on that thread...)

Dakota,

I agree the runner can return to the white portion to negate the miss of the orange bag. The runner did something to rectify their mistake. The defense had a chance at an appeal. However, that is not the case in this scenario. In the OP, the runner never left the white portion of the bag. They did nothing to resolve their mistake and the defense did not have a chance at an appeal. This is a totally different situation.