Orange Base
 

Question, probobly easy, but I am a new ASA umpire.

First Basemen fields ball in fair territory. Fair ball, however the momentum takes him into foul territory. First basemen runs and tags the orange base only before the runner gets to the base. What is the call?

out. 8-2m-4, 8-2m-5 (hrmm, ASA rule numbering has me cornfused.)

My call? Get rid of the safety base. It causes more problems than it solves. JMO.

better yet.. lets make it a 8' first base ultra-safe mega circle. with some 24" lanes in it. :D

More data. Did F3 touch the safety base as the momentum was pulling him/her into foul territory, but did s/he move into foul territory and then come back to the base?

Thanks

Hmmmm...sounds familiar... :cool:

... he had to run (from foul territory) and tag the orange (colored) part.

OP looks pretty complete.

He had to run from foul territory and hit only the orange base. Does this change anything?

Yes. When the defense is coming from foul territory to make the play, they are allowed to use the orange bag. OUT.

No, that isn't what the OP states, Sam....er, ...CNB.

Just validates the out call. As Tom notes, as long as the defender is coming from the foul side of the 1B line, either portion of the base my be used.

Yes. It's time to get a new batter because the old one is out.

(sorry, couldn't resist...going back to cave..)

How does this not state that the fielder was carried/dragged/whatever into foul territory? and how does this not state that he had to run and tag the bag from foul territory?

not to pick nits.. but it looks like a pretty complete OP to me.

h3ll... why am i arguing about it... its not like i wrote it or got the answer wrong. :)
its all good.

First Basemen fields ball in fair territory. Fair ball, however the momentum takes him into foul territory. First basemen runs and tags the orange base only before the runner gets to the base.

It states that the momentum took the fielder into foul territory. Just making sure his "momentum" and "runs" were not the same action. If it were, F3 does not have the right to use the orange portion of the base.

BTW, I got some real interesting crawfish info last week.

This is what my Umpire in Chief gave me:
RULES SUPPLEMENT PAGE 107
1. Appeals
A. Types.
1. Missing a base, forward or backward, or touching the white portion
only of the double base when a play is being made on the
batter-runner at first base.
EXCEPTION: A play from foul territory, or an errant or missed
throw pulling the defensive player into foul territory.

Page 83
E. When the batter-runner runs outside the three-foot lane and, in the umpire’s
judgment, interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base; however,
the batter-runner may run outside the three-foot lane to avoid a fielder attempting
to field a batted ball. When the defensive player uses the colored
portion of the double base, the batter-runner can run in fair territory when the
throw is coming from the foul side of first base, and if hit by the thrown ball,
it is not interference. If intentional interference is ruled, the runner is out.

Page 84
M. The double base shall be used at first base in all divisions of play. The following
rules should be enforced:
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.
3. When 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.
EFFECT: The batter-runner is out when there is a play being made at
first base and the batter-runner touches only the white portion, providing
the defense appeals prior to the batter-runner returning to first base.
Once the runner returns to the white or colored portion of the base, an
appeal shall not be honored.

He states that runner would be called Safe. Interpretations?

As in NCAA softball, those lanes wouldn't last a half inning.:D

Maybe so, but still a true and accurate point.

This has nothing to do with the play. This was not an appeal.

Again, nothing to do with the scenario presented.

How convenient this stopped at 8.2.M.3. The next paragraph (8.2.M.4) reads: On any force out attempt from the foul side of first base the defense and the batter-runner may use either the white or colored portion of the base.

What do you think?

ohh im always interested in crawfish info....specially if its beer related. :)

I am not getting a straight answer. I think it is a judgement call. I made a call that the runner was out. I know that the orange base is for the runner 99% of the time, however the rule book is like reading an insurance policy and I can't get a good answer.

How straight of an answer do you want? This has been given to you several times in this thread (assuming the fielder was returning to the base from foul territory, and not just stretching across the base to make the catch...)
Doesn't seem hard to read at all. The only person not giving you a straight answer seems to be your UIC.

It's all good. Seems that it would be a judgement call. The whole momentum taking the fielder into foul territory then returning to the orange base to make the put out is a grey area for the coach that is seeking the rule interpretation.

I appreciate all of your info on this and good luck to all.

I'm still a bit confused as to why there's any confusion. If the errant throw pulls the defensive player into foul territory, the defensive player and the batter-runner switch bags. Nothing more, nothing less.

Simple.

Well, a little more or less... ;) Neither HAVE to switch bags, they are just permitted to if they choose to.

You are confused over the confusion????
Anyway, it is just a matter of the coach thinking she is correct and me trying to find the rule and interpret it correctly. She states the ball was fielded in fair territory (true), but F3 fielder's momentum from moving to the left carried F3 into foul territory, the closest and only play that F3 could take was to hit the orange base. I called out. Coach upset because she thought the orange base is only for the runner, and after much discussion we come to find out that this is not the case.

Any other questions? Done being confused about being confused? (can that be done?)

It is easier when you think about the purpose of the double base.

It is to reduce collisions between the fielder and the runner.

Requiring the fielder, coming back to the bag from foul territory, to cross the runner's path to get to the white bag would be counter to the purpose of the double base in the first place.

One more point. The coach has not taken their ACE certification, otherwise coach would not be arguing this at all.

I know this is not an umpire question/concern, BUT...if all the commissioners/JO commissioners were to require their coaches to obtain their ACE certification, we wouldn't have coaches asking about this. I can guarangoddamtee you this coach has not taken ACE, probably not this year or any prior year.

And, if they attended our in person sessions held by JO commissioner with invited guests, like we do in Seattle where we do everything right ;):mad: they also wouldn't be asking stupid questions about DP/Flex. They might be asking SMART questions about it, and that's ok.

(Smart question being, "Can I list a DP and a Flex on my original lineup card and then drop the Flex right after I give you my lineup card?" I wanted to hug her! She got it!)

and finally,
"If pigs could fly......."

...you'd have swine flew(flu)? :confused:

ouch:eek:

Is that what you get when you mix avian flu and swine flu?

ouch:eek::eek:

I don't get it? why?... I mean I know they can do that. but i don't see the strategy in it. (maybe that's why I umpire instead of coach) :D

It is not a matter of whether there is an advantage, they think there is an advantage and as we all know, you cannot change that mentality.

AFAIC, all the coach has done is lose one entry into the game and restricted the player to where in the line-up she can emerge.

AFAIC... lol, i had to google that one.

yeah, I asked the coach at home and she said that they had never done it as it seemed trivial and didn't give them anything they didn't already have (she dumbs it down for her poor umpire ;) )

But thanks for the info.

Oh there are pages of why this is a good stategy and stuff. It just seems that it would be a little easier to teach 'em to both hit and catch....Its not often we run into aging rightfielders in JO ball who can't cover the outfield pastures like they use to. So we need to only let them hit.

It seems to me the VAST majority of coaches use the Dp/Flex for the purpose of getting one more player in the game.

yeah... i was actually asking about why they would list the flex/dp, then promptly drop the flex from the lineup during the plate meeting.

Because, if they ever want to use the DP/FLEX during the course of the game, then they must start the game with it.

And that is fine, but why not just leave the player there? All the coach has done here is abuse a player's eligibilty.

If you have a team that doesn't have 10 people who can play at least one portion of the game, you might want to start looking for another team.

Here's the rationale I've heard for this move.

Starting pitcher is also a very good with the bat. Relief pitcher is not.

Starting pitcher is entered as DP, relief pitcher as FLEX. Once the lineup is accepted, DP plays defense for FLEX. If a relief pitcher is needed, she re-enters as FLEX, and DP continues to bat.

So, just another rule, in this case meant to increase participation, becomes a game strategy and fails to achieve it's purpose unless the starting pitcher falters.

Another reason I am not a fan of specialty rules.

Well, I suppose the DP/FLEX rule could be argued as a participation rule, but at its core, it is a DH rule, which is intended to either provide offensive punch to the game (e.g. AL) or protect the pitcher (pretty much all amateur baseball), much like the courtesy runner rule for pitchers.

However, it seems to me that all the extra bits in the DP/FLEX rule over a simple DH rule are there precisely to allow coaches to use it strategically, and not just for participation. Otherwise, the EP rules are much easier to deal with.

I'm a fan of the EH rule in slow-pitch. It's especially nice in coed so the s**tty hot chick who can't catch or throw a damn can still bat, even if she can't hold up the bat, but does a good job of holding up her, ummm, rack while holding the bat. :D

Seriously, the EH rule in slow-pitch is a good one. It allows some teams who have so many good players to let one hit and still be flexible enough to allow him to switch interchangeably with someone in the field for defense. It's more used by the travel type teams than the rec type teams. I've used it plenty in men's ball when I was coaching.

If you like, I could check with one of the former NUS members who I believe was one of the authors of the original rule. :cool: I run into him a couple times a month. I'll probably see his son Monday night.

Go ahead, but the key question is "why is the DP/FLEX not just an EP rule if the goal is participation?"

So there is a place for the person which has limited skills to participate.

I think the whole DP/FLEX/EH schtick got started because someone filed an ADA lawsuit, so it was aimed to "satisfy" the ADA and increase participation.

These type of rules preceded the ADA.

OK, you have the DH rule if you have a defensive specialist who can't bat and a slugger with no defensive skills. You have the EP rule for the 10,11,12... player batting order with "pick your 9" on defense. Those are easier to remember and administer than DP/FLEX, so why all the extra bits to the DP/FLEX rule? Why not just adopt one/both of the DH or EP rules?

Probably morphed from years of coaches abusing the rules to gain a strategic advantage.

Personally, I really don't care for any of them. Play 9/10, hit 9/10, field 9/10.

If it wasn't the ADA, then it could have been another disability law that applies to ASA as a part of USA Softball, which gets funding from the USOC which gets funding from Congress. There's connections in which someone could have sued using one of the disability laws. I distinctly remember there was a person from Nebraska who sued the ASA because the rules didn't allow for her to play.

If these rules we're discussing were enacted before 1990 (and I don't remember them from back then), then they did predate the ADA.

I'm not sure of the date, but this rule is nothing new and has been around a while.

I believe that the DP/Flex was put in place in ASA ball right around 89/90 (my daughter was playing 14U when I first encountered the rule).

The DP/Flex was adopted to allow more options than the DH rule in baseball. In particular the DP playing defense. At a meeting I attended the explanation was that this allowed the DP to give players a break on defense. They emphasized that this was to help players stay fresh during tourneys where they played multiple games in one day.

<img src="http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/agree.gif" title="image: i agree">

The adult kickball league I play in uses modified ASA rules. I was surprised to see that for our second game, the field had the safety base since our first game did not use one. :eek:

I've only ever been involved in a game with the safety base once in my life and the umpire didn't explain the rule differences well or at all. So I was trying to recall the rules I knew from the NFHS rule book and from discussions here.

Because I didn't know that the BR only has to touch the orange base when there is a play at first base, I kept appealing that the runner improperly touched the white base on all of their extra base hits in the first inning. :o

It wasn't until I had a chance to read the ASA rule book that I saw there was more to the rule than what I thought (too many exceptions, IMO <img src="http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/twocents.gif" title="image: my two cents">).

It's not anywhere near that old, less than 10 years. Maybe 2004.

I think at least twice that.

That might be the year they renamed the DP/DEFO rule the DP/FLEX rule; same rule, just renamed the one position to be consistent with the NCAA decision to rename it.

I think it was actually in the mid-80's when the DP/Defo showed up in the college game and a year or so later when it made it's way to ASA.

In the mid-80's, the college game used the ASA rulebook, with very minor modifications. I don't believe the DP/DEFO rule started in college first; ASA adopted it, which made it a college rule.

I thought that the DEFO literally was "defense only," and wasn't allowed to bat for any reason. Then the introduction of the FLEX added that new dimension. Of course, I could also be wrong since I have slept since then.

No, the only reason the name changed is because, as usual, the NCAA had to have it's own brand and called it the FLEX noting that the 10th player was flexible.

Again, something which which I disagree. DEFO is appropriate as when there is a DEFO in the game, they can play only defense. When the DEFO moves into the batting order for the DP, they just become another player and the DEFO position disappears..

Of course, JMHO

The rule did not change; only the name changed. And, it changed with apparently no sense of irony... the DP position is far more flexible than the FLEX position.

I found reference to the DP rule in a reprint of the 1989 ASA rules that was part of a manual published by the National Association For Girls & Women in Sports. You can download the manual here (PDF file). Click on Full Text link.

I'm glad someone else realizes that.