As noted in a previous post, this is not clear. The reason I posted it was to create some serious discussion about a straight, no nonsense play and how the rules apply.

Because it is not clear, I have forwarded the play up the food chain. Don't know if there will be a response or clarification, but we can hope.

NOTE: This is not an ASA interpretation, but how I would rule on the play lacking any additional guidance from the upper rungs of the ladder.

On the play, if the defense's appeal came as a relatively immediate reaction to the BR's failure to touch the colored portion of the base, I would honor the appeal.

If the defense did not react in a timely fashion and, in my judgment, came more as an afterthought, I will consider the player now as a runner and entitled to utilize the entire 30"X15" base rendering any missed base appeal dead.

Can I back this up with 100%, black and white rule? Yes, but there is a contrary, yet still somewhat logical, argument within the rule to support someone to rule differently. This is what causes this comes under Rule 10.

I always knew I was contrary, but it is nice to know I am also somewhat logical! :p

So, at the end of the day, the OP author agrees that OP sitch calls for an out.

Good enough for me.

Either we have rules covering double bases or we dont.

Drank 2 beers with WBS tonight... asked him about this sitch.

His opinion:
Safe. No appeal granted.

His thought:
Runner passed the (safety) base. Assumed to have touched it. Now on white base. In that instance, that is the "return" allowed. She's standing on the base now. She's safe. No appeal allowed.

For those who don't know who WBS is, turn to Pg 198 of the ASA Umpire Edition.

:D

Only one problem, the runner didn't pass the safety base. There was no return. The batter-runner never left the bag.

If that's what the national staff wants, then I'll call it that way, but I'm going to wait until there is an official statement from them or a rule change. Until then, I'm allowing the appeal, by rule.

Me, too (especially since it agrees with what I would have done anyway). But, even if it didn't, I'd call it the way they want it. I certainly hope this gets addressed, if only to bring this thread to a close (since the actual game situation rarely happens!) And, I'll not allow it, also by rule.

As an aside, it is nice to know that a member of the NUS is also contrary and somewhat logical! :D

Its ok, Dakota, to have a different opinion. And no one ever said you weren't logical. As a matter of fact, I said you had good arguments to back up your opinion. I believe you are logical, I just disagree with your position. I also believe my position is logical and backed by the rule book. We'll just have to wait to see how the NUS comes down on this and then call it that way the one time in our life time it happens. ;) :D

I was just poking fun at Mike's last post, referring to my interpretation as "contrary and somewhat logical"... ;)

All in good humor...

I figured as much, but just wanted to make sure you knew that I didn't think you were illogical.

Except .... :p :D

As I previously noted, I sent this up the food chain. I received an answer from a deputy supervisor a couple weeks ago, but held off because this play was also posted on a local board.

The official ruling is that the runner is safe. The reason the runner is safe is because that player is no longer a batter-runner.

Runner - An offensive player who has reached first base and has not be put out.

The double-base rule only applies to the BR. Since the runner is permitted to use either portion of the base, there is no appeal as the runner is in contact with the base. IOW, unless the BR runs through the base, the defense has no possibility of an appeal.

Thanks for the followup, Mike. We all appreciate it. :)

Now there is an interesting slant on this. I did a quick scan back through the thread and I didn't see any of us take the position that the BR was now a runner and therefore not subject to the safety base rule. Interesting.

And, thanks.

Hmmmm.... while I agree, I think this could possibly lead to a wording change in 8.2.M.3-Effect...

I still disagree, although like other things with wrong interpretations, I have to call what the food chain says.

My disagreement is that the player is still a BR because of never "legally reaching" first base and therefore can not be reclassified as a runner who has.

What I would call is another matter, but other than ASA, if the fielder or DC presented this arguement, I would have to agree.