Double base, errant throw issue

[IRISHMAFIA]

Speaking ASA & ISF

During a clinic this past week, Henry Pollard provided a definition of an "errant throw" as it pertains to the double base.

Please note that this is not to be confused with the "errant throw" as it pertains to interference or obstruction calls.

On the double-base issue, and errant throw is one which cannot be caught by the defender at first base. If the fielder can catch the ball, it is merely a "wide" or inaccurate throw, not errant.

For a defender to use the colored portion of the double base on an errant throw, the defender must leave the base to retrieve the ball and return from foul territory in their effort to retire the BR.

A throw which simply pulls the defender who catches the ball off the white portion of the bag is NOT considered an errant throw and the fielder may NOT use the colored portion in this case to retire the BR.

Thanks,

[St. Louis Blue]

If I understand this interp correctly on a wide throw on the foul side of 1B, F6 will have to stretch across the orange bag to reach the ball. BR will still have to use the orange bag. How will this result in fewer collisions at 1B???

Have fun out there( it keeps getting harder ).

Gordon

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by St. Louis Blue
If I understand this interp correctly on a wide throw on the foul side of 1B, F6 will have to stretch across the orange bag to reach the ball. BR will still have to use the orange bag. How will this result in fewer collisions at 1B???

Have fun out there( it keeps getting harder ).

Gordon

How would there be fewer if F3 were allowed step in front of the runner and use the colored portion of the bag? Though that wasn't the interpretation, that is how many umpires read "errant" throw.

What Henry has now stated is that if F3 can catch the ball, it is not an errant throw therefore elimination F3 from using the colored portion of the bag. Doing what you suggest would make F3 susceptable to a collision and obstruction call.

Now, it's up to the coaches to teach the players how to play 1st base.

[St. Louis Blue]

I am sorry but I still don't see the reasoning. If I am F3 and the ball is on the foul side but still catchable without leaving the base, I have to keep my foot on the white portion while the runner uses the orange. This puts me in a crossover situation. If , on the other hand, I can use the orange base and the runner uses the white one, the crossover and, subsequently the risk of collision is lowered.

[reed2310]

That is why i am not a big believer in the double base.On any type of bad throw it does nothing but create confusion for the fielder and the runner.then you have coache's that don't know how to teach the kid's properly. I say OUT with the double bag. That is just my 2 cents, which is really not worth that especially with all the veterns here. You guy's are a great wealth of knowledge and i thank-you.

[IRISHMAFIA]

That's exactly how I felt. Unless the coaches actually coach and teach the kids properly, the double-base isn't worth the dirt it lays upon.

However, I was happy to hear Henry say that a defender could not use the colored portion just because a throw is a little off line.

[oppool]

Actually I think Henry has change his stance on this from earlier this year to agree with what Merle Butler stance was on this. Which is good it makes it a lot easier of at least the BIG BOYS agree on the way it should be called



Don

[NC_Blue]

I would suppose (By your apparent response on the "Other" board...lol) that you disagreed w/ my stance on this issue (Or...maybe not). It seems like the way Henry is trying to teach this.....would cause MORE injuries than allowing the UMPIRES to determine what "Errant" means....and rule based on THEIR interp.

Just my $.02...

If you'd care to expound....further than what is posted above, Mike (Or anyone)....I'd appreciate it.

Jeff

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by NC_Blue
I would suppose (By your apparent response on the "Other" board...lol) that you disagreed w/ my stance on this issue (Or...maybe not). It seems like the way Henry is trying to teach this.....would cause MORE injuries than allowing the UMPIRES to determine what "Errant" means....and rule based on THEIR interp.

Just my $.02...

If you'd care to expound....further than what is posted above, Mike (Or anyone)....I'd appreciate it.

Jeff

I believe it would be less of a threat of a collision. If F3 knows they can get an out, I believe they would be more likely to attempt to keep contact with the base. If there is no out to be had, it would benefit the defense if F3 abandoned the base to stop the ball, thus removing themselves from the BR's path.

BTW, this isn't an interpretation, it is what was always meant to be, but bad wording caused umpires to believe otherwise.