Double first base, appealing

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

A runner using only the white portion of first base has not missed first base. He has touched first base.

I assume you are referring to a batter-runner since there is no double-base for a runner.

If called out on appeal, he's being called out for using only the white portion of first base while a play was being made not for missing the base.

No, the BR/R is ruled out on appeal for missing the one of two bases which they are required to touch when there is a play at 1B.

(For example see the rules supplement under appeals that differentiates these or try and find a rule that it breaks).

Very clearly RS 1.A.1, but that is not a rule.

And the rule book states that he may be called out for this until he has returned to first base. It does not say as it should that touching only the white portion of first base should be treated as missing first base correctable by touching either part of the base has been retouched.

That is because the moment the BR touches or passes 1B, that player is now a runner. ASA 1.Batter Runner and 1.Runner

Suppose that an umpire you were working with, insisted that an appeal be honored after a pitch for this violation and you wanted to show him in the rule book where that was wrong. You could go to the rules supplement where it's clear. But can you find a rule?

ASA 8.7.F-I.Effect

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I assume you are referring to a batter-runner since there is no double-base for a runner.

Yes, I meant the batter runner.

No, the BR/R is ruled out on appeal for missing the one of two bases which they are required to touch when there is a play at 1B.

Given the hassle you gave me over definitions in the previous quote, I'll give it back and point out that there aren't two first bases. And there no rule that says that you can treat it that way.

That is because the moment the BR touches or passes 1B, that player is now a runner. ASA 1.Batter Runner and 1.Runner



ASA 8.7.F-I.Effect

You can try and get there on I (and I don't dispute that's exactly how it's meant to be done). But you have to ignore (and should ignore) the text of the rule to do it. In relevant part it states, ***and the runner fails to touch it***. But the runner did touch it, she just got the wrong portion.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

In relevant part it states, ***and the runner fails to touch it***. But the runner did touch it, she just got the wrong portion.

Again. Runner and Batter-Runner are not always the same thing. they are treated similarly, but not identically. This is one of the places that matters. The part you're quoting refers to a runner.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Again. Runner and Batter-Runner are not always the same thing. they are treated similarly, but not identically. This is one of the places that matters. The part you're quoting refers to a runner.

Is there another spot you can go to get a batter-runner out who simply misses first base? I think in this case runner is meant to include the batter runner.

[Dakota]

Look, I'm not one to shy away from picking on the ASA book for occasional goofy, convoluted, or contradictory wording, but this discussion would shame the 13th century monks arguing about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.

Has ASA changed the wording of the double base rule since 2009? (The only rule book I have at work is a pdf copy of the 2009 book.)

The 2009 book seems crystal clear on this:

ASA 8-2-M-3 (2009)

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

Is there another spot you can go to get a batter-runner out who simply misses first base? I think in this case runner is meant to include the batter runner.

I thought we'd already covered that pretty thickly. The rule about the BR says that if she gets back to first before the appeal, there's no appeal to be honored - if not, she's out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

Given the hassle you gave me over definitions in the previous quote, I'll give it back and point out that there aren't two first bases. And there no rule that says that you can treat it that way.

Let's see, there is a base (one) of a particular size and then there is the double base (two), each with the exact same specifications. Oh, and BTW, not all fields are equiped with a one-piece double base, some are two separate pieces that, by rule, must be identical in all aspects other than color.

You can try and get there on I (and I don't dispute that's exactly how it's meant to be done). But you have to ignore (and should ignore) the text of the rule to do it. In relevant part it states, ***and the runner fails to touch it***. But the runner did touch it, she just got the wrong portion.

Again, the BR did not touch the base the rules direct the BR to touch and I don't have to ignore ****.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Look, I'm not one to shy away from picking on the ASA book for occasional goofy, convoluted, or contradictory wording, but this discussion would shame the 13th century monks arguing about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.

Has ASA changed the wording of the double base rule since 2009? (The only rule book I have at work is a pdf copy of the 2009 book.)

The 2009 book seems crystal clear on this:

ASA 8-2-M-3 (2009)

There's no contention about a batter returning ending the appeal window. The problem is that if the batter doesn't return but instead advances then by rule the appeal window never ends. This is an oversight that you can get out of if you say there are two first bases but I'm pretty sure the rule book never tries to make that contention. It's one big base even if it's made of two pieces and the rules are very clear about talking about portions of the same base.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by youngump

There's no contention about a batter returning ending the appeal window. The problem is that if the batter doesn't return but instead advances then by rule the appeal window never ends.

Doesn't the appeal window end after the next pitch legal or illegal? Isn't that in the general appeals information? Page 111 rules supplement 1.A.1 talks about an appeal for touching the white only, then 1.E says when it has to be made (before next pitch, end of inning infielders leave fair territory, end of game umpire leave field). Seems like there is an end to the appeal period for touching the white only.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Doesn't the appeal window end after the next pitch legal or illegal? Isn't that in the general appeals information? Page 111 rules supplement 1.A.1 talks about an appeal for touching the white only, then 1.E says when it has to be made (before next pitch, end of inning infielders leave fair territory, end of game umpire leave field). Seems like there is an end to the appeal period for touching the white only.

Exactly. I truly don't understand the point youngump is making.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Doesn't the appeal window end after the next pitch legal or illegal? Isn't that in the general appeals information? Page 111 rules supplement 1.A.1 talks about an appeal for touching the white only, then 1.E says when it has to be made (before next pitch, end of inning infielders leave fair territory, end of game umpire leave field). Seems like there is an end to the appeal period for touching the white only.

Yes, in the rules supplement it's very clear how this is meant to work. But the rulebook itself doesn't correspond to the rules supplement.
A runner overruns first with a play happening and because of what happens next decides to go straight to second. Each of us wants that to be appealable no later than the next pitch (etc).
But the rule which limits the time for appeals does not cover the situation of a runner touching the wrong part of the base. It only covers a runner missing a base. So to deal with first base we have to do two things.
1st. We have to apply the rule regarding runner appeals to the batter runner. That's ASA 8.7.F-I.Effect (this I have no problem with though MBCrowder objected earlier)
2nd. We have to apply a rule regarding missing a base to a player touching the wrong part of a base. (This I think we are meant to do, the rules supplement suggests the same outcome, but the rules themselves don't support it).

Or there must be some rule somewhere that limits the time to appeal the improper touch of 1st base. But nobody has pointed me at one.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

Or there must be some rule somewhere that limits the time to appeal the improper touch of 1st base. But nobody has pointed me at one.

Please go bowling with Larry from the baseball board. Take your law degrees elsewhere. This has gone beyond dumb.

[Tru_in_Blu]

the time to appeal the improper touch of 1st base

Has to happen before the runner returns to the white portion of the base.

If the runner has advanced due to an overthrow, s/he hasn't returned to the white portion of the base, so I would consider this a missed base and appealable before the next pitch.

Backup:

I sent the following to KR about 3 years ago:

In one of the games a coach had asked me about appealing a batter-runner that stepped on the white portion of the double base on a routine play. She was safe, but because there was not an immediate appeal and she returned to first base, an appeal became moot.



In a later game, a younger player who cleary wasn't too softball savvy yet, hit a ground ball to F4 who proceeded to bobble it, kick it, drop it, roll it, and finally picked it up and threw to F3. The batter-runner was not running very fast and as she approaced 1B saw the throw coming and placed her foot on the white portion of the double base and froze there. The throw finally arrived a second or two later, was caught cleanly by F3, and I called "safe". The batter-runner still had not moved remaining in contact with the white portion of the base..



After the safe call, F3 threw the ball to F1 in the circle, and we played on from there.



My "what if" question is if the batter-runner had never touched the colored portion of the base, indeed, never left the base at all once she touched the white portion, could the defense appeal the fact that she didn't use the colored portion of the base? Their appeal would be on a runner who was in contact with the base, albeit the wrong side of the double-base.



Seems to me that the premise for an appeal for a runner that over-runs 1B either missing the base altogether or touching the wrong color would be prior to their returning to the base.



KR's reply:

In this case we would apply rule 8 section 2M 3. Even though the runner did not pass the base when stopping on the base and standing on the base at the time of the appeal this runner would be safe. Hope this helps.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

...But the rule which limits the time for appeals does not cover the situation of a runner touching the wrong part of the base. It only covers a runner missing a base. ...

Good Lord. Read 8-8-H. And, if you claim 8-8 does not apply to a BR, read 8-8-I.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Good Lord. Read 8-8-H. And, if you claim 8-8 does not apply to a BR, read 8-8-I.

No objection to applying it to a BR, 8-8-H fixes the loophole that's in the other sections as far as I'm concerned.