You make the call - double base

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.

[SRW]

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by SRW

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.

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

...If that's what the national staff wants, then I'll call it that way,....

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!)

Originally Posted by rwest

... Until then, I'm allowing the appeal, by rule.

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!

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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!

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.

[Dakota]

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

All in good humor...

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.