Not in fair territory as required in your reference above.

Read both definitions. A ball hitting the white meets the qualification of a fair ball, yet the definition of foul does not include or refer to the double base at all.

8.2.M.1&2 are both true statements. Yet for an umpire to make determinations and apply rules, s/he must consider the entire book, not just a specific word, line, sentence or paragraph alone.

A ball which does hit or bound over the orange portion only is a foul ball since that portion of the base is in foul territory (2.3.H) and at no time did the batted ball meet the qualification of a fair ball as set forth in Rule 1.

Lacking any qualifying statement in the definition of a foul ball involving the double base, a ball which hits ANY portion of the white must be a fair ball.

So we're almost to agreement. A ball which hits or bounds over any part of the white base is a fair ball.

And you've now added the qualifier to 8.2.m.2 in that you've stated if the ball hits or bounds over only the colored portion it is a foul ball. This is different than how the rule reads, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Like I said, 99 44/100s of umpires will call a fair ball if a ball hits both white/colored portions of the base at the same time.

So why isn't the rule wordsmithed a bit to eliminate the non-optimal, mutually exclusive logic?

Say what you will about taking all the rules as a collective whole and applying them as appropriate. I can accept that.

I will say that the two passages, one right after another, which are basically an If/Then set of statements fail the common English interpretation. [Although all of us know what "they" really meant.] Kinda like that rule with the pitcher having 20 seconds and a violation was an illegal pitch but no runners advanced because everyone knew what "they" really meant. But that one got changed, didn't it?

Ted

I didn't say, nor insinuate this is what the rule states.

I don't think it needs a change, but then again, I understand what it means by understanding how one rule complements the other.

Hey, maybe I'm one of those "they" people.

Count me among the "They"s; pretty clear to me.

You can never grab one sentence of the rule book and "Holy Grail" that sentence. You must take the entirety of the book, the definitions, case plays, rules supplements and understand the reasoning, intent, application, and enforcement of the rule.

That is our job as officials; we must go beyond a single sentence and understand "ASA Rules".

I disagree
 

I think ASA has it correct. What hasn't been clearly stated, IMHO, thus far is that R1 is allowed to advance without liability to be put out, but it is not R1 that is being put out. It is R2. And R2 is protected only to third base. So when she overran third she was in jeopardy. ASA's rule is very clear to me. No run shall score if a live ball tag play occurs before the runner crossing home. The FED has it wrong in my opinion. How can a run score when they didn't touch home before the third out of the inning? I know in FED they can because they said so, but I believe ASA's logic on this is more sound. But I will call it the way the governing rules for the game I'm officiating require me to.

For the "they" crowd - I'm guessing this group is made up of people who have been officiating for decades and you know what the intent of this particular rule is. As do I. Intended things have been re-written in the past. Ever written a query and when you got it back you thought "that's not what I wanted", but when you re-checked your parameters found out that that's what you asked for?

I don't think I'm Holy Grailing anything, just trying to point out that two different sentences, one after another, are not worded properly.

And Irish, you most definitely did say, and insinuate this is what the rule states when you add your own interpretation of "only the colored" of the double-base. Those are your added words to support your argument. But we're in violent agreement about what the call should be. We're just not in agreement that the ASA rules cited are gospel.

Errors in the manual on page 217:

GOOD PELVIC ALLIGNMENT (GPA): The alignment of the Plate Umpire’s pelvic with the outside front corner of home plate.

The pink "ALLIGNMENT" should be "ALIGNMENT" [one "L"].

The red "pelvic" should be "pelvis".

Do I know what "they" mean? Yup! Are there mistakes in that passage? Yup! Do I want to holy grail them? He!! no!

Ted

Ted,

Have you ever seen the ASA or any other softball rule book on the NYT or anyone else's Best Selling list?

This is a publication created as a tool of communications for utilization in conjunction with numerous interpretations, clinics, schools and case plays documentation.

It is not supposed to be a "good read" or qualify as an award-winning essay.

Want to be picky? Where does it state anywhere that a player must run to 1B, 2B, 3B & home, in that order?

To cover every what if or possible scenario, you would need to create a tome and buy another equipment bag just to carry the book.

Best selling list? Roughly 40k-50k copies a year for how many years, albeit different editions. It might qualify!

A tool of communications should be as correct as possible in the given language that it is published. I can forgive transgressions if it has been translated to other languages where various phrases often get confused. But whatever is written/printed/published should be correct. And "numerious interpretations" should be a red flag and a quality concern. While it might not be able to be 100%, the fewer possibilities for "interpretation" should be the goal.

5.5.A.1 Now this is a simple one that I get. I start from home and go on a journey, making various stops along the way. My first venue is first base, my second sortie is second base, my third visit is third base and my final destination is home at last. But I guess that's why they called those white squares first, second, and third base, respectively. And if you don't follow the logical 1, 2, 3, 4 progression on your journey, you do not pass go, do not collect $200, and go directly to jail.

I think the case books are a very helpful tool and also mitigate the need for any tomes. The rules themselves probably follow that 80-20 rule so common in many aspects of our lives. There are excpetions that require discussion or correction and examples [case plays] are recorded to help us with the uncommon or flat out weird. But simplistic passages that tell us how to have our pelvics [sic] alligned [sic] should be run through spell and grammar checks.

Ted

Ted,

I'm usually among the first to criticize the poor grammar, spelling, syntax, sentence construction, thoroughness in revisions, and just plain curious sentences in the ASA rule book.

But, on the fair/foul double-base thing, I don't see the problem, seriously. What, exactly, is confusing about the rule?

Nah, not you. ;)

The sad part is as much as ASA is guilty of poor grammar, occasional misspellings and missing/extra words included in a sentence, it isn't much better among the masses outside of the rulebook world.

It is nothing to see a misused or misspelled word on the front page of a newspaper. It is routine for the professional "ace reporters" on the TV news, national and local, to butcher the English language. Even worse, I don't think they are aware of being incorrect/improper in their usage of many phrases or words!

Then again, graduate students submit papers in some classes that resemble those cute little e-mails with the jumbled words that your brain recognizes.

Yeah, yeah, I know it is not everywhere. But it is sad enough that this apathy toward educating the proper usage exists anywhere in our school system regardless of the level.

Okay, rant over.

Agree with CelticNHblue and Rwest explainations. Shows ASA has thought through this more clearly.

Other orgs need to add a rule to let that run score after a third out. They are misinterpreting their own rules at worst and at least not writing clearly. They are the ones who are having a hard time with logic, grammar, syntax and what have ya.:D:eek: (pertains to this instance only)

Have not read pertinent rules of NCAA and thus could be guilty of badmouthing the college game.

I think you're missing Ted's point. It's not confusing; it's simply wrong.

By intent if any part of the ball passes over the base in fair territory it is fair. However, the cited rule reads that a ball which bounds over the colored portion of the bag is foul. A ball can actually bound over the colored portion of the bag and be fair as long as part of it was in fair territory at the time. The rule cited which says it is foul is simply wrong.

To compound matters, the definition of fair/foul mentions bounding over "the base" where it really means the fair portion of the double base.

I don't think anybody is confused.
________
LIVE SEX

OK, here's my last try...

ASA 8-2-M
1. A batted ball hitting or bounding over the white portion is fair.
2. A batted ball hitting or bounding over the colored portion is foul.

So when a ball hits both white and colored portions of the base simultaneously [see black & white fallacy below], which rule takes precedent? Don’t answer because we know what the answer should be, answer based on the statements above. [If you argue that the ball cannot hit both sides of the base at the same time, let’s draw a vertical line from your belly button and then ask Jenny Finch to throw a pitch and hit the line. I’m guessing you’ll have a red welt on both sides of that line.]

As umpires, we’ve interpreted this rule:
Statement 1 is ALWAYS a true statement.
Statement 2 is true only if the ball does not hit or bound over any portion of the white base. [This is the part Irish inserted into his explanation of his position, which is right as we know it, but not right as the statements are written.]


I didn’t write this stuff below, just copied it to try and clarify my reasoning:

The Composition fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of characteristic from the parts of something into the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain characteristic, it follows that the whole has that characteristic, too. However, the situation is such that the characteristic in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole.

The Suppressed Evidence fallacy is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent.

BIFURCATION

Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

[The alternative here, of course, being that a ball can hit both parts of the base at once.]

No, this is where you are missing the RULE. If the ball passes over or hits the white, it is fair. If the ball passes over or hits the colored portion, it is foul. Where does it state that if passes over or hits both colors, it is ..........?

Remember, this base is for the BR and R ONLY. The only reason it is even addressed is because it sits on the playing field.

So, for clarification to determine whether a batted ball is fair or foul, I'm going to the definitions and there it is. If it hits or passes over the white, it is a fair ball. Okay, now what is stated under "Foul Ball"? Aaa, hmmmm........cannot find anything. Okay, then, the rule book states this can only be a fair ball.

Thank goodnes that was your last try, because I'm done pissing into the wind.

Same logic fallacy here, right (ASA Rule 1)?

Since a softball is not an object with zero width, it is certainly possible for a batted ball to both be over third base and over foul territory at the same time, correct? Or to roll in foul territory and to brush against the base as it goes past, in foul territory, correct? Isn't this precisely the same argument you are making with the double base?

Would it make the rule book easier to use or just more wordy to correct these "errors"?