ASA what's the call?

[Dakota]

Originally posted by oppool
If the throw from fair territory brings F3 completly off of the bag in foul territory and the ball was caught on the fly the fielder may touch the orange side of the bag for the out

The other way I heard it was

If the fielder catches the ball in flight even in foul territory he must still come back to the white side. Only if the ball contacts the ground in foul territory is it then the fielder is able to make the out coming back to the orange side of the bag.

This seems overly obtuse. Maybe what they are trying to say is a pulled foot is still a pulled foot - F3 can't, while stretching for the throw, pull her foot onto the orange bag for the out. This, if legal, would be a definite advantage for the defense of the double base.

If that is what they are saying, why not just say that and leave it to umpire judgment as to the difference between a pulled foot and an errant throw pulling the player into foul territory?

[ntxblue]

The BRs have been so conditioned to run to the orange base that I rarely have seen the BR adjust to F3 moving over on the errant throw. The BR will either hesitate to avoid F3 or collide with F3. The exceptions to this are usually with the better 16U & 18U players.

I have seen BRs adjust to use the white base and then be hit with the errant throw. I don't like the use of the double base. If F3 is properly trained/coached . . . OOPS!

[Dakota]

Originally posted by ntxblue
The BRs have been so conditioned to run to the orange base that I rarely have seen the BR adjust to F3 moving over on the errant throw. The BR will either hesitate to avoid F3 or collide with F3. The exceptions to this are usually with the better 16U & 18U players.

I have seen BRs adjust to use the white base and then be hit with the errant throw. I don't like the use of the double base. If F3 is properly trained/coached . . . OOPS!

I am ambivalent regarding the double base. I think it bears some of the characteristics of a solution looking for a problem. However, on the whole, I think it probably does from time to time help to avoid an injury that might have otherwise come close to happening.

Nevertheless, as the use of the base becomes more common, players will become accustomed to using it.

I don't think "proper" training or coaching will address the safety issue. I have seen too many teams that have been coached to block the base to believe that.

My sense of "justice" (as opposed to my good sense, maybe) would like to see a distinction made between "set up" obstruction (i.e. the defensive player positions herself in the way) v. "flow of the play" obstruction (e.g. a defensive player runs into the runner). I'd like to see the penalty for the former be given some teeth - e.g. an extra base award. That would go a long way to eliminate base blocking, IMO.

[oppool]

Dakota

In the play we were discussing F3 feet came off of either side of the bag into foul territory. It was agreed that F3 foot was on the orange bag when the errant throw was caught that he would have to touch white to make the out


I agree with what Gary said and if F3 was properly coached there would not be a collision problem.....but......yes 1st we would have to have the coaches properly taught.

The only time I have seen the double base 1st base be effective was in a NSA and SPA tournaments where if the runner hit any part of the white bag on his run through it was a automatic out no appeal needed. Unders ASA rule where it is a live ball appeal it is useless no teams look for it and a runner can hit 99.9% white and still not be out on an appeal. My stance would be to either do away with it or write the rule that would make the teams aware there is a penalty if the runner does not fully make contact with the safty side of the bag


JMHO

Don

[ntxblue]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dakota

I don't think "proper" training or coaching will address the safety issue. I have seen too many teams that have been coached to block the base to believe that.

My sense of "justice" (as opposed to my good sense, maybe) would like to see a distinction made between "set up" obstruction (i.e. the defensive player positions herself in the way) v. "flow of the play" obstruction (e.g. a defensive player runs into the runner). I'd like to see the penalty for the former be given some teeth - e.g. an extra base award. That would go a long way to eliminate base blocking, IMO.



Dakota,

I haven't had any trouble with F3 trying to block the BR advancing to first from home. Usually, that comes into play when the catcher tries to pick off the runner at first. If F3 knows how to set up properly on the edge of 1st, the BR has a clear path, while F3 is protected from contact.

The double base really doesn't help the collision factor on errant throws. But you might be onto something with a penalty with some teeth - umpire judgement never gets questioned anyway!!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

Mike,

I've been thinking about this and trying to understand what you are saying. Compare the play of an errant throw pulling F3 into foul territory under three different circumstances:

a) a single white base;
b) a double base where the defense may not use the colored base on an errant throw;
c) the rule as currently written.

Which is safer?

With a), we have the BR running at full speed to the base in the running lane, and F3 snagging the errant throw and scrambling back to the base. Both players will try to occupy the same spot at the same time, both moving quickly, both approaching the base from the foul territory side.

With b), we have a similar situation, only now F3 has to cross the path of the BR to reach the legal base. While the base each is trying for is different, F3 has a high likelihood, it seems to me, of blocking the colored base as she tries to beat the runner to the base.

With c), the BR may cross into fair territory and run outside the running lane to touch the white base, and F3 may scramble back to the colored base. Of course, maybe they won't do this, but they can in order to avoid a collision.

Circumstance c) seems safer to me.


[Edited by Dakota on Jan 7th, 2002 at 09:43 AM]

The problem is that if you ever watch JO players, they often run with their heads down. Even if they were paying attention, a fielder who goes for a wide throw isn't going to give the runner much time to "cross over".

Also, if the fielder knows s/he can use the outer portion of the base, they are more likely to try and hold the bag and catch the ball. If they are aware the cannot get an out, they are more likely to leave the area of the base to catch the ball and not allow the overthrow.

Or, at least, that is what decent coaching would provide.

The single white base is just as safe as a double-base if the players are properly coached. Too often you see 1st basemen planting their foot in the middle of the base as much as you see the runners clipping the inside of the base. The double-base is nothing more than a substitute for good coaching and mechanics. In the long run, it is a detrement to the game and the players.

I have been working with the double-base for nearly four years and have not seen any reduction in collisions at 1B.

[Elaine "Lady Blue"]

The rule doesn't say "caught in flight", it says that an errant throw pulls F3 into foul territory. If F3 touches the white bag, I've got an out fellas!