I don't get it

[tcannizzo]

Play: With two outs and R1 on 2B, B4 hits a ground ball to F6. F6 fields the ball and throws high to 1B. F3 jumps up and catches F6’s throw and the throw takes F3 onto the contrasting color of the base. F3 only touches the contrasting color of the base before B4 reaches 1B. Is B4 out?
Ruling: Since the throw from F6 was an errant throw, that in the opinion of the umpire took F3 to the contrasting color of the base, the batter-runner would be out. (Rule 8, Section 2M [5]:On an errant throw pulling the defense off the white portion of the base into foul ground, the defense and the batter-runner can use either the white or contrasting portion. If the umpire judged the throw took F3 to the contrasting color portion of the base that is in foul ground, then F3 can use either portion of the base. Note the throw does not have to take F3 beyond the contrasting color of the base to be considered to have pulled the defense into foul ground.)
=============================================
Why is the defense rewarded for an error?

[MD Longhorn]

Which ruleset?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Play: With two outs and R1 on 2B, B4 hits a ground ball to F6. F6 fields the ball and throws high to 1B. F3 jumps up and catches F6’s throw and the throw takes F3 onto the contrasting color of the base. F3 only touches the contrasting color of the base before B4 reaches 1B. Is B4 out?
Ruling: Since the throw from F6 was an errant throw, that in the opinion of the umpire took F3 to the contrasting color of the base, the batter-runner would be out. (Rule 8, Section 2M [5]:On an errant throw pulling the defense off the white portion of the base into foul ground, the defense and the batter-runner can use either the white or contrasting portion. If the umpire judged the throw took F3 to the contrasting color portion of the base that is in foul ground, then F3 can use either portion of the base. Note the throw does not have to take F3 beyond the contrasting color of the base to be considered to have pulled the defense into foul ground.)
=============================================
Why is the defense rewarded for an error?

Are you assuming F3 would not have caught the throw on the fair/white side if it was accurate?

[tcannizzo]

ASA. This was taken from the July 2011 Rules Clarification on the ASA website.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Are you assuming F3 would not have caught the throw on the fair/white side if it was accurate?

Not our job to assume anything. The bottom line is that F3 didn't maintain contact with the white base, and is now rewarded by getting an out anyway.

This is now a play on ASA website because it constitutes a change in how to call this play. The prior regime (that was involved in writing the rule, and grasped the full intent, directed by the now Commisioner from the Richmond, VA area, HP) stated that this wasn't an out, that only a throw that drew that defender completely into foul territory could THEN result in the defender returning to the nearer (foul/contrast) bag to accomplish the mission of the "safety" base (not crossing over the runner's path).

This change doesn't support the intent of safety; it rewards the defense with a double sized base on the batter-runner, even when the double sized base doesn't come into effect until after the batter-runner passes the base when a play is being made.

But, the person making that ruling has that authority; so it is now the new ruling.

[CecilOne]

OK, I confused you. I was not saying assume anything about what might have happened. Just asking for discussion about "rewarding for an error"; that an accurate throw was likely to be an out and whether the OP was basing "reward for an error" on an accurate throw not getting an out.

IOW, is it a reward for an error if a non-error would get an out.

[DaveASA/FED]

I guess I see it as a ruling in line with the concept of the safety base. My interp of the whole double base idea is that the runner has a base (15X15) to run to and the fielder has a base to make a play at. The theory as I understand it is now BR has an unobstructed "lane" to run at and the fielder has an area to touch the base without worrying about getting an ankle clipped by the passing runner.

Normal play: Fielder has white portion, BR has contrasting colored bag never the two shall meet.
Errant throw play 1: Play ASA clarification describes. Errant throw pulls fielder into the batter runners path in front of the contrasting color portion of the bag. At this point BR is free to use the white portion again theory is they switch bags, defense gets contrasting color bag to make play, BR gets white portion to have unobstructed path to run through.
Errant throw play 2:One that Steve described from the past interp. Throw takes fielder past the colored portion into foul ground then the fielder is coming back to touch contrasting portion of the bag.

To me both the errant plays have the same receipt for a collision. If you think of it as I described above with a BR having an open base to run through either play 1 or play 2 has the fielder possibly/probably blocking the contrasting bag, leaving only the white bag for the BR to run through. So if in play 1 I require the fielder to cross in from the colored portion to the white portion I have IMO put the BR at a disadvantage since they have to change which portion they are running to again and they possibly have both portions of that base blocked by the fielder, who will most likely have the ball at that point so there would be no OBS called.

Again in answer to the OP about advantages it can be looked at either way. Looking at it from the BR's eyes if you made the fielder come back to the white portion: I'm running to colored portion, play develops fielder comes over colored portion I aim for the now open white portion, now fielder comes back to white portion I have to move my aim back to colored portion. Granted these are small differences since the two bags are connected. But if we rule with the clarification once that fielder is pulled into the contrasting colored portion as a BR I know the white is all mine I got a clear lane to run through.

Now I personally haven't seen data that says a double base is safer or not so don't think I feel this rule is a "required item" to save lives at 1st base or anthing. But I see this as a consistent way to rule in this case, if the defense gets pulled onto the contrasting bag they use it to make their play and that frees up the white bag for the BR to have an open lane to run to.

[tcannizzo]

There is already a prescription for safety with the double base.
If a throw is coming from foul ground to 1B, the defender is entitled to use the colored portion of the base. If this occurs, then the BR/R must use the white portion of the base. This puts the onus on BR/R to avoid INT/USC from a collision/crashing perspective.

So, what do we have if an errant throw from F6 brings F3 down on the colored portion of the base and BR collides with F3? Are you going to rule INT/USC? I think not, because there would be many cases where BR would have had zero time to re-act to this.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

If a throw is coming from foul ground to 1B, the defender is entitled to use the colored portion of the base. If this occurs, then the BR/R must use the white portion of the base.

Not MUST....MAY.

Big difference!

[tcannizzo]

Yes, you are right, but in keeping with the safety concept of the double base, I would like to suggest that BR should use the white portion. However, there is no rule citation that says this, it simply says may.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Seems to me we talked about this in July.

It is contradictory to previous interpretation and, as previously stated, is contrary to the concept of safety, not to mention a justified ruling.