You make the call - double base
 

Not necessarily.

Speaking ASA

Line drive to right field. F9 makes a play to 1B in an attempt to retire the BR.

BR slides (pop-up) into the white portion of 1B just beating the throw (There was no INT, so please don't raise the possibility). The BR makes no effort to touch the colored portion of the base.

Since there was a play at 1B from fair territory, the BR, by rule, is required to use the colored portion of the base. If F3 with ball in hand and touching 1B turns to you and states, "Blue, she never touched the right base" are you going to call the runner out for missing the base?

Well that is a tough one. Contacting the wrong portion of 1st with a play from fair territory is a live ball appeal that has to be done prior to the runner returning to the base, and since she is still on the base, it is going to be hard for me to call her out. I am going to say no, since she is in contact with the base and the appeal rule for that play states once she has returned to the white portion the appeal can no longer be made.

Ok I am ready to hear what I missed.....

By rule I possibly should call her out, From a survival standpoint, I believe I saw her right foot touch the orange bag!

Without looking it up. And without seeing the play.
My call - SAFE.
My interp - BR is entitled to use the white portion of 1B when they are advancing to 2B on an extra base hit attempt. Since ball was hit to outfield, BR will get the benefit of the doubt. Colored portion of the base is intended for a typical infield play.

No so. By rule, ANY play at first. Infield/outfield was eliminated from an consideration a couple years ago. Obviously, since there is a play at 1B and the runner is sliding, I think the "advancing to 2B" would be a stretch to sell.

I understand that a straight slide into 1B is a stretch, but without looking at the exact same play, this will be tough to resolve on a message board.

If the runner had swung wide as though advancing to 2B, perhaps betting that the ball would get RF, but then saw the throw coming in, I could see a slide into 1B and only getting white. (although I never agree with the strategy of sliding into 1B, except to avoid a tag).

My point is that the slide itself does not come into consideration in my ruling.

No, I'm not calling her out on the appeal. Why? Because she has to leave the base in order to return to it. The appeal has to be made prior to her returning. Since she never left the base, she can't return... so no appeal is allowed.

Just my overpriced $0.02. I'm probably wrong. Oh well. :D

The runner is out.
R/S 1-L

No, it is not an HTBT play. It is purely a rule interpretation question, not a multiple "what if" scenario.

1) My comment "How about "Once BR has reached first, it's just one big base"? " was about being specific and correct instead of an earlier "passed 1st base", agreed to by that poster.
2) As the BR is out for not using the safety base on a play from fair ground, the BR has not "reached" 1st legally and so has not "reached"; based on rules not physics/geometry.
3) I would agree that on appeal, the BR is out. The "returning" concept is also rules, not physics/geometry. The rule is applied jst as if the BR leaped over the base or ran wide of it, because the white doesn't exist for BR rule purposes on an play of a "force" nature.

The scenario is even more evident in co-ed games where the women, more often than not, run to first and stop on the bag. If it is only the white portion then they have to be out on the proper appeal or the double base rule is diminished.

In your situation, (or in the OP) how could you call an out? "Proper appeal" means that they did so before the runner returned... the runner never left, so consequently can't return. Hence the conundrum Irish is getting at... the DEF can only get an out on this if appealed prior to the BR returning to 1B. If she never left it to begin with (like the OP states), then by rule, there's no appeal allowed. Does this negate or diminish the safety base concept? Sure it does. Could it be a loophole? Sure it could be.

Common sense prevails here. A batter/runner who lands and remains on the white portion of the bag after the ball has arrived is out on proper appeal. If not, then there is no meaning to the rule.

You just changed the scenario. No need to appeal that... ball beat the runner. Out.

my bad, the runner beat the throw...and is out, by rule, if properly appealed for missing the red base.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I believe I have an out
 

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?

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).

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?

Well then.

That settles that.

They aren't standing on the base they missed
 

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.

Because I believe the rulebook supports it
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

While I agree this isn't what I would have ruled in a game situation, it makes sense as the rule goes. The definition of a runner is a BR who reaches first base. The player is standing on the base. How do you "illegally" reach a base?

One problem with this ruling - how the heck do you explain it with any credibility on the field? It seems to me the explanation would sound like umpire BS to a coach.

I'm pretty sure I could sell the explanation I offered (can't appeal for missing the base she is standing on, coach).

A little different slant, but still...

12Us playing 14B in a local tournament. 11-4, nobody out, bottom of 3, winning team is (of course!) visitors, and it's a little more than a drizzle.

Ball hit back to pticher, she kicks it into foul territory on the first base side. Catcher is trailing the play, gets the ball, and throws to 1B for the out. Of course the runner goes to the orange and 1B goes to white. I say nothing except out.

After the half-inning, Mr. Preventative here gets the two coaches together and explains that in a perfect (dry) world (and one in which I hadn't just taken a Benadryl, which I found out I can not do with all these other meds), the runner coulda shoulda been safe and I can't coach your players BUT someone is gonna call that runner safe...or call that runner out...depending on the case, the mood of the umpire, and whether the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.

John, I'm not understanding why the runner should have been called safe. If the ball is coming from the foul side of first base the defense and the batter-runner may use either the white or colored portion of the base.

Yep, Ed's right.

Your explanation to the coaches was unnecessary and incorrect.

After further review, you're both right.

Damn...maybe all that Benadryl is still impacting me. When you wake up 8 hours later in the back parking lot of Fort Dent, and you're the only person there...it can be even scarier than my umpiring.

She did miss it, coach, but once she passed it, the entire bag becomes just one bag - for both her and your fielder. She returned to that bag before your fielder appealed the original miss.

I don't think that would be a hard sell at all - just like any other returning legally to a base before an appeal.

I don't think it is that hard a sell, either. Nothings perfect and just how many times do you get a players stopping dead on the base when a play is being made on them?

I was just envisioning explaining the difference between a batter-runner and a runner and the magic transformation that takes place in the vacinity of 1B. ;)

I agree with that - which is why I wouldn't even open that can of worms (batter-runner vs runner), but rather explain what changes after BR reaches the bag ("once she gets to first, coach, the base becomes one big bag", or something similar).

And if I'm the coach I would say she never passed the bag and she never returned. I don't believe you can use that argument to explain your ruling. Its also not the logic ASA is using. They are saying that when the batter-runner reaches first base, she is no longer a batter-runner but a runner and that the double bag no longer exists. Its one big bag. I believe that argument is easier to sell. Not my original position. I still think the runner should be called out. But I'm at the bottom of the food chain so what I think doesn't count. I'll call it like ASA wants it called.

Then say reached instead of passed ... and this IS what ASA is saying - once she reaches it, she's a runner, making the bag one big bag - I was just avoiding (as stated to Dakota) the whole runner vs batter-runner conversation with the coach and instead describing what changed when BR reached the bag.

No magical transformation, just tell him to look up the definitions of each in Rule 1 for BR & R which are on pages 53 & 59, respectively.

And if THAT doesn't work, just tell them that according to the latest manifestation of string theory, we are only living in a very narrow layer of what would be 11 universes, each probably no more than a nanomillimeter wide, and over in the next universe no one cares, so shut up and play ball.:eek:

Or tha galaxy in which we live could be nothing more than a mere speck under Donald Sutherland's finger nail.

Here is the response I received:

Mike,

Thanks again for your question.

Although the play is rare, it certainly does happen.

Using Rule 8 Section 2M3 we see the problem and the answer. It states: "Whenever a play is being made on the batter-runner, the defense must use the white portion and the batter-runner the colored portion of the base.

The effect tells us that the batter-runner is out ......providing the defense appeals prior to the batter-runner returning to first base. It goes on to say that .."Once the runner returns to the white or colored portion of the base, no appeal can be made".

By definition, a runner is ..."an offensive player who has reached first base, and not yet been put out". Once the batter-runner reached first base, they became a runner, and have the right to return to either the white or colored portion. Using the above rule references the appeal could not be allowed, and the runner would be safe.

Switch it around
 

Sit: BR hits to F6, who fields cleanly and throws to F3 whos foot is a: completly on the orange, or b: mostly on orange/some on white. Is runner safe or out in a or b? using what ruling. It seems that even though safety is the main reason for the double base, there is a certain amount of burdon placed on offensive and defense to get a penalty inacted for improper use. Answering my own question I would have to say she is safe in A using the "no bag" sell and OUT in B because even though she is in contact with the orange, she is also in contact with the white. Is any part of her foot allowed to touch the orange, Does the BR have any recourse for F3 having any or most of her foot on the orange?

thanks

Not that will allow her to stay in the game

Some answer, begging the question of the need for a double bag.

The need for the double-base is a direct result of today's coaches, from t-ball to NCAA Div I, either ignoring 1B as a skill position or not caring enough to make sure the player knows how to play the position.

Watch the NCAA DI Softball Championships this coming week and see how many players play the position properly and how many run to the base, plop a foot on it and stretch for a throw before it is enroute.

My point was to the rule that requires a batter/runner to run to the colored bag when, in fact, he/she is really not required to do so. The defense has to use the white bag and if it does not, the batter/runner is safe. If the batter/runner hits the white he is out only on appeal, and no appeal is allowed in the OP on this thread.

Common sense takes a beating.