overthrow

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

Don't even think about the use that type of terminology!!!!!!!!!!! The rule says nothing about "plus one". That is a myth that doesn't need fuel added to it.

Rule says the runner is entitled to two (2) bases from where they are at when the ball left the thrower's hands. (paraphrased)

Oh...I see you covered my previous post already.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Never, ever use the one plus one terminology. The rule is clearly spelled out in the book, and all you are doing is helping to propogate a myth.

The myth that a runner gets one base plus one instead of two is perhaps the least pernicious of all myths. No?
________
Manual Inhale Vaporizer

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by youngump

The myth that a runner gets one base plus one instead of two is perhaps the least pernicious of all myths. No?

Nah, I'd say "tie goes to the runner" is worse.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Nah, I'd say "tie goes to the runner" is worse.

But speaking ASA, the tie does go to the runner, by rule!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

The myth that a runner gets one base plus one instead of two is perhaps the least pernicious of all myths. No?

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Nah, I'd say "tie goes to the runner" is worse.

Hmmm.... if the 1+1 myth is the "least pernicious", then ALL OTHER myths are worse...

However, since the result of this myth (if the myth is held by the umpire, or he is talked into it by the DC), is converting a 2 base award into a one base award if the runner is reversing direction, it would not seem to me to be harmless.

BTW, didn't at least one code contain the 1+1 rule? I'm thinking U-trip?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

BTW, didn't at least one code contain the 1+1 rule? I'm thinking U-trip?

Not since I have been around. Maybe before my time.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But speaking ASA, the tie does go to the runner, by rule!

Ain't no such thing as a tie. Ever.

[BretMan]

USSSA slow pitch (but not their fastpitch) has the rule that if a runner leaves early on a caught fly ball, then a subsequent throw goes out of play, they count the two-base award as the one left early, then one more forward base. So, a runner who started out on first, then was between first and second when the throw was made, would be placed on second, instead of third.

(I don't know if that was ever expressed as "one plus one", but it does kind of tie into the myth.)

Here's a strange play (and a ball call) from my tournament last weekend that relates to base awards:

Runners on first and third. Pitch comes in and F2 fires to first on a pick-off attempt. Runner dives back in safely. F3 then fires to third, taking a shot at the other runner, and the ball sails out of play.

Runner from first trots down to second an I (the base umpire) point her to third base. She advances to third and is on the bag when the plate umpire steps out and waves her back to second.

I'm kind of like, "What's that about?". Nobody complains or questions the runner placement. I keep my trap shut waiting for some kind of appeal or protest. One doesn't come and we play on.

Later, between innings, I ask the plate umpire why he only gave the runner one base. He says it was because she was heading back to first on the play! I tried explaining to him why that was wrong, but he seemed unconvinced.

By the way, this tournament was the first ever I had worked under the NAFA sanction. I could probably start five or six more threads about the weird rulings, uniforms and mechanics I encountered!

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Hmmm.... if the 1+1 myth is the "least pernicious", then ALL OTHER myths are worse...

However, since the result of this myth (if the myth is held by the umpire, or he is talked into it by the DC), is converting a 2 base award into a one base award if the runner is reversing direction, it would not seem to me to be harmless.

BTW, didn't at least one code contain the 1+1 rule? I'm thinking U-trip?

My memory's a bit foggy today, but...

I don't think it was an actual "rule," per se, but rather, an interpretation of a rule. I first heard about this as a "current rule interpretation" in the early/mid-90s either in ASA or U-trip, but more than likely it was U-trip. The effect had to do with a combination of a runner's baserunning obligations, in particular when they've either missed a base or didn't tag up on a caught fly ball. The awarded base depended upon which way they were facing (either the next base or the base they missed).

Now, I will admit that this was during my first few years of umpiring, and didn't receive any formal training back then. The above interpretation was probably explained to me by someone who was full of it, but being that I can't remember who it was... Oh well.

[SethPDX]

A few years back a 12U rec coach asked at the plate meeting, "what's your [] rule on overthrows?" (I was not aware I could decide on my own overthrow rule.)

"Well, two bases from the time of the throw," I reply.

You guessed it--Runners on 2d and 3d, F1 tries a pickoff throw to third that sails past the fence line. You can imagine the confusion when I told both runners to come on home.

"But isn't it the base she was going to plus one?"

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Hmmm.... if the 1+1 myth is the "least pernicious", then ALL OTHER myths are worse...
BTW, didn't at least one code contain the 1+1 rule? I'm thinking U-trip?

ASA 1933: Rule 25.8 "If, on any play which starts with a batted ball, the ball is overthrown into foul territory at first, third, or home base, runners shall be entitled to advance one base in addition to the one to which they are going, if the ball touches any obstruction, or if a block is declared.

That was the ASA rule into the early '70's. Note there was no concept of "dead ball territory" then; everything outside 1B and 3B was foul territory. As long as the ball was free and unobstructed, runners could keep running. When the ball became blocked, then 1+1 was in effect.

By '75 the rule had been changed to two bases. But from where? Now you may think this is baseball, but the ASA rule was "two bases from TOP on the first play from the infield; two bases from TOT on first play from outfield or subsequent play on infield."

It wasn't until 1987 that we got the rule that we have today: "All runners will be awarded two bases and the award will be governed by the position of the runners when the ball left any fielder's hand."

WMB

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

ASA 1933: [I]Rule 25.8 "If, on any play which starts with a batted ball, the ball is overthrown...

I'm glad we have a contributor who was umpiring in 1933. I knew you were old, but...

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by BretMan

USSSA slow pitch (but not their fastpitch) has the rule that if a runner leaves early on a caught fly ball, then a subsequent throw goes out of play, they count the two-base award as the one left early, then one more forward base. So, a runner who started out on first, then was between first and second when the throw was made, would be placed on second, instead of third.

(I don't know if that was ever expressed as "one plus one", but it does kind of tie into the myth.)

Here's a strange play (and a ball call) from my tournament last weekend that relates to base awards:

Runners on first and third. Pitch comes in and F2 fires to first on a pick-off attempt. Runner dives back in safely. F3 then fires to third, taking a shot at the other runner, and the ball sails out of play.

Runner from first trots down to second an I (the base umpire) point her to third base. She advances to third and is on the bag when the plate umpire steps out and waves her back to second.

I'm kind of like, "What's that about?". Nobody complains or questions the runner placement. I keep my trap shut waiting for some kind of appeal or protest. One doesn't come and we play on.

Later, between innings, I ask the plate umpire why he only gave the runner one base. He says it was because she was heading back to first on the play! I tried explaining to him why that was wrong, but he seemed unconvinced.

By the way, this tournament was the first ever I had worked under the NAFA sanction. I could probably start five or six more threads about the weird rulings, uniforms and mechanics I encountered!

U right bretman, by NAFA that was the wrong call. See 7.4 2 and Notes.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

It wasn't until 1987 that we got the rule that we have today: "All runners will be awarded two bases and the award will be governed by the position of the runners when the ball left any fielder's hand."

WMB

And a lot of umpires did not want to give up possible outs, so there was always the, "you get two on an overthrow, but you have to make them".

IOW, they would not designate areas which probably should have been dead because they still wanted the fielder the opportunity to get the out, but they would still maximize the runner's advancement to two bases.

It damn near took a pick and shovel to get that mentality out of the minds of some of the umpires I knew.