Double first base, appealing
 

If I recall correctly, if there's a play at first base, and the batter-runner touches only the white portion of the base, the defense must appeal the play before the batter-runner returns to first.

What if the batter-runner chooses not to return to first? What if the ball gets away, and the runner takes off for second? How does that affect the window for appeal?

I'm assuming ASA here...

If they advance beyond first base, the defense may certainly appeal the missed base (1st base).

No affect at all. Any missed base may be appealed until 1) it is corrected (so no longer missed), or 2) a next pitch, legal or illegal is thrown, or 3) if the end of inning, before all infielders have left the field, or 4) if the end of the game, before the umpires have left the field.

Which reminds me, the rule book would be a lot shorter and easier reading if " a next pitch, legal or illegal is thrown, or 3) if the end of inning, before all infielders have left the field, or 4) if the end of the game, before the umpires have left the field" was in a standard definition instead of repeated so much. :rolleyes:
[/dreaming off] :D

Actually, 8-2-M-2 has a shorter appeal window when double first bases are used:

So, are you saying that, if the batter-runner returns to first, the appeal window is closed, but if he goes to any other base, the window remains open?

What does a foul ball have to do with the appeal. But Steve summarized an appeal for a missed base.

Just like any other base. FORGET the double-base issue. You may be trying to find something special that is not there.

It doesn't. I meant 8-2-M-3. Thanks.

Actually, I believe I'm pointing out something that isn't there. Unless I'm missing something (and I could be), I see an inconsistency.

Again, if a batter-runner that only touches the white on a play at first is called safe, the window for appeal remains open until he returns to first. (That's a different window than the usual before-the-next-pitch.) If he never goes back to first, though, why should the window for appeal be different, just because he's gone to a different base?

The window for appeal ends when she returns to touch first because, well............. once she returns to touch first, she no longer has missed first!!!
:eek:

If she never goes back to first (continues on to 2nd) then she still has missed 1st.

Yep, like I said, looking for something that isn't there, nor is there a need to be.

There lies the simplicity I was seeking.

Thanks. By the way, does the same who-can-appeal rule apply (any defensive player for a live ball, infielder for a dead ball)?

No, as this is an instance of a live ball appeal only. This is a special case of missing a base because the BR can over run first without jeopardy to be put out. Using the wrong portion of the bag is in extension of missing first base.

Therefore, if the BR touches the wrong color while arriving before the ball, the umpire should signal safe (unlike what happened in the Yankees/Blue Jays game last week, thread on the baseball board has a video clip). Then wait for a live ball appeal or the runner to arrive back at first.

However, if the BR continues to second before retouching first (for what ever reason) and is standing on second, then this just becomes a missed base appeal and the deal ball appeal procedure can be used.

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?

That's exactly where my mindset was.

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

No, it doesn't ... that's exactly the same.

I'm not sure why this is difficult. Yes. Of course. He a runner returns and touches a missed base, they've corrected their error - whether this runner is at 2nd or a BR hitting the wrong bag at 1st. Same thing exactly. Once they return to 1st, they've corrected their error.

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

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

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

Yes, I meant the batter runner.


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.


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. 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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

:confused:

:(

Rule 8 Batter-Runner and Runner
Section 2. Batter-Runner is Out
Section 7. Runner is Out

Section 2 would obviously apply because we have a Batter-Runner (BR).

8.2.M.3 clearly identifies the sitch in the OP, and provides the Effect. If a play is made at 1st base on the BR, regardless of what happens subsequent to that play, the BR is still required to use the contrasting color portion of the base. If the throw to 1st is wide (or high) and pulls F3 off the bag, the BR is still obligated to use the contrasting color portion of the bag (a play is made on the BR). If the ball gets away from F3, BR only contacts the white portion of the bag and then decides to continue to 2nd, the runner is still obligated to touch 1st as part of normal base-running responsibilities. Remember, having passed 1st base, the BR becomes a runner.

The appeal window is still open, until the BR returns to 1st (8.2.M.3), or until the defense properly requests a live ball appeal. Any fielder in possession of the ball must touch the base missed, or tag the runner committing the violation, if they are still on the playing field.

If play has ended and time is called (or next pitch occurs, legal or illegal), the appeal window has expired.

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.

Is this procedure also applicable to ASA slow pitch, or is a verbal appeal acceptable prior to the runner touching first?

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.

You too??? Must be something about being on these boards. What was yours for? I had a retinal reattachment myself this summer.

Mine was not nearly as bad as that. Elective in fact. I had PRK (a Laser correction for nearsightedness) and they made me stay out of my contacts for a while before doing it.

dude??????:eek:

Shows you how percerptions can be wrong on the internet.....
For some reason, you were one of the last people on this board I would expect to see using that noun.:eek::eek:

Admittedly not a standard part of my vocabulary. So you weren't completely out of line in your thinking. I was in high school in the 60's, college in the early 70's (started umpiring in 1972, actually), and resemble the general commentary that if you remember much about those years, then you probably weren't really there.

But if you knew SRW, I bet you would think it was appropriate for him. At least I do. Mike, what say you??

SRW and I had a couple of beers yesterday. "Dude" was used a couple of times. It was common in my HS (in MD no less) in 1970. :cool:

Thanks. I never left... just lurking, based on the advice from others.

We're close in age, but you are way ahead of me as an umpire... only about 18 yrs here)

So tell me, how can we forget so much about those days, but remember every word to every song that was released from then?

Dude...

I had a couple. If I recall, you only had one. And you weren't even driving.



;) :D

Guilty as charged. I've done more eating and drinking this trip than I've done all summer! :cool:

Ha! Been there. :D Apparently, you pay better attention than I do, but I'm not one to ......well, nevermind.

Steve, high school was so long ago.......but you never know about some things. I was reading a letter my father wrote to some co-workers from France in June of 1944 and he actually referred to one of the POWs as a "geek". Go figure.

Yeah, I can see SRW & "dude" being somewhat synonymous, but more so appropriate for wade.

From what I understand, those doing the the threa ..., oops, advising in his area are more insistent in absolute compliance in all things. I am aware of a few examples of attempts at controlling individuals

It wasn't a threa ..., it was honestly advice.