Double first base, appealing

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I have to admit I was wondering where you were missing the connection to the first point 1), being until corrected (which the runner does by returning to touch the base, either base at that point). The rule you were citing simply reflected that, without using those words.

If not corrected, all other appeal windows which might apply still apply; it isn't a different rule, actually, than any other missed base which can be appealed.

While I agree this is how it's meant to be called (though I don't particularly like the rule), I don't think the rule book actually says this. Allow me to play rulebook lawyer here.

A runner using only the white portion of first base has not missed first base. He has touched first base. 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. (For example see the rules supplement under appeals that differentiates these or try and find a rule that it breaks). 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.

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?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by youngump

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

That's exactly where my mindset was.

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?

Actually, I believe I cited that very rule in the fourth post of this thread.

[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.

[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.

[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 ****.

[argodad]

Originally Posted by youngump

Allow me to play rulebook lawyer here.

I've always preferred to be a rulebook student rather than a rulebook lawyer.

[SRW]

Allow me to apologize. He's one of mine.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by SRW

Allow me to apologize. He's one of mine.

Hey now. I'm a student of the book too, just sometimes like to see things from left field ... and I warned everybody before I started I was going off into left field. Besides I've been off the field all summer with eye surgery, so I have an excuse to overthink things.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

Hey now. I'm a student of the book too, just sometimes like to see things from left field ... and I warned everybody before I started I was going off into left field. Besides I've been off the field all summer with eye surgery, so I have an excuse to overthink things.

But, dude, answered back on post #3, and reinforced on post #6 of this thread. But, continued efforts to discredit only reinforced the obvious (at least to most, it would seem).

On another note, hope the surgery was successful for you.

SRW, good to see you back from time to time.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

But, dude, answered back on post #3, and reinforced on post #6 of this thread. But, continued efforts to discredit only reinforced the obvious (at least to most, it would seem).

On another note, hope the surgery was successful for you.

SRW, good to see you back from time to time.

I'm sorry about that. I thought I made it very clear that I was only talking about a shortcoming in the book in each post but especially in post 13 where I broached the topic. How to call this I agree is totally obvious. The rule that allows you to do it is all I was questioning as I thought it may have been completely missed. Now I think it was just partially missed.