NFHS Double base

[KJUmp]

I don't work Fed.
Are there any differences in the rules regarding the double base between ASA and Fed?
Thanks for the help.

[Tex]

Yes, NFHS is still "On an errant throw pulling the defense off the base into foul ground." Defense must come from foul territory to use the colored base. Play can be appealed before batter-runner comes back to 1st.

ASA changed this year that on an errant throw the defense can use either base.

NFHS and ASA were the same until this year.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes, NFHS is still "On an errant throw pulling the defense off the base into foul ground." Defense must come from foul territory to use the colored base. Play can be appealed before batter-runner comes back to 1st.

ASA changed this year that on an errant throw the defense can use either base.

NFHS and ASA were the same until this year.

I'm not so sure that NFHS would be any different, with respect to an errant throw pulling the fielder off the white base and directly to the colored one.

While ASA did not change the wording of the actual rule in their rule book, they have apparently changed their interpretation of their rule, and of what exactly constitutes a fielder being "pulled into foul ground". This was an interpretation that kind of "snuck in under the radar". It directly conflicts with a case play that had previously been published in their case book. The old case play said that the fielder had to be pulled completely off the base and completely over into foul ground- not just from the white base directly to the colored one- before the colored base could be used.

There was a lengthy thread on this here a few months ago: My First Ever Official Protest

Since this came up in a game for me this summer, and since there seemed to be some confusion about how it should be ruled, I had sent an email to Kevin Ryan at ASA for clarification. In his response to me, he presented the "new" interpretation that a fielder being pulled directly from the white base to the colored base would be a legal play by the defender.

That was the first that I had ever heard of this being the case. Interestingly enough, the following month this play and interpretation appeared in the "Plays and Clarifications" section of the ASA web site.

In the above noted thread from Officiating.com, someone posted that this same play and question had been posed to Mary Struckhoff at NFHS the previous year. In her response, she agreed that the play was legitimate and the batter-runner would be out. Essentially, she gave the same response I got from ASA, and she gave it one year prior to the "new" ASA interpretation being published.

You do have to wonder if an email response from a member of the NFHS Rules Committee can be considered as an "official" rule interpretation. If you think it can, then apparently ASA and NFHS are in agreement on this play.

[CecilOne]

Of course, the contrasting safety base is in foul ground.

[Tex]

I will stay with what the NFHS rule book states and from the many NFHS clinics that I have attended, where the double-base has been discussed.

The ball must be established in foul territory before the defensive person can used the colored portion (foul side) of the double base without an appeal.

Note NFHS rule book 8-10-2 (a, b, and c).
a) ... from the foul side of the base.
b) ... off the base into foul ground.
c) ... when the throw is coming from the foul side of first base.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by Tex

I will stay with what the NFHS rule book states and from the many NFHS clinics that I have attended, where the double-base has been discussed.

The ball must be established in foul territory before the defensive person can used the colored portion (foul side) of the double base without an appeal.

Note NFHS rule book 9-10-2 (a, b, and c).
a) ... from the foul side of the base.
b) ... off the base into foul ground.
c) ... when the throw is coming from the foul side of first base.

I think you meant 8-10-2, and I think the issue is splitting hairs, or reading more than is there in the rule. Where does the rule book state that "The ball must be established in foul territory before the defensive person can use the colored portion...."???? If we are going to stick with the rule book then let's do that....the way I see the book reading is:

I think b is the main point that this OP is dealing with so....

b. On an errant throw pulling the defense off the base into foul ground.

So how far into foul ground do they have to be pulled? The rule doesn't state a distance, some people want to add one themselves, but by rule, if they have a high throw (IMO that is an errant throw) that they jump up to get and in jumping they move backward and land on the contrasting portion of the base, which is in foul ground then haven't they done what this section says they can do and be entitled to use the contrasting portion to get an out?? There was an errant throw (any throw that is high enough they have to jump for it, isn't where it is supposed to be thus is errant), if they jump up they have been pulled off the base, and they land in foul ground. Seems like all the items in b are covered, I'd call an out if they did all this prior to the batter-runner touching 1st base!!!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

There was an errant throw (any throw that is high enough they have to jump for it, isn't where it is supposed to be thus is errant), if they jump up they have been pulled off the base, and they land in foul ground.

See, here is the point from the ASA perspective. When this first came into being, an "errant" throw was considered one which pulled the defender away from the play/base and caused the defender to return FROM foul ground was allowed to use the colored portion of the base. This made the application consistent with the purpose of the damn thing and that is to avoid collisions at 1B.

When attempts were made to define errant throw, they were shot down by the newer authorities.

By changing the interpretation to the present of simply going for a bad throw and coming down on the colored portion does two things that rules should not do, reward poor play and place the defender and runner on a possibly unavoidable collision course.

If ASA provided the protection by rule as previously applied, I have little doubt NFHS would not follow that interpretation.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

See, here is the point from the ASA perspective. When this first came into being, an "errant" throw was considered one which pulled the defender away from the play/base and caused the defender to return FROM foul ground was allowed to use the colored portion of the base. This made the application consistent with the purpose of the damn thing and that is to avoid collisions at 1B.

I guess if F3 is in the air and landing on the colored portion of the base it would seem safer to me to let them stay there and let the BR run to the white portion. If we follow your thinking the BR and fielder would be crossing paths twice, thus doubling the chance of collision. Which would be inconsistent with the purpose of the damn thing, at least to me it would.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I guess if F3 is in the air and landing on the colored portion of the base it would seem safer to me to let them stay there and let the BR run to the white portion. If we follow your thinking the BR and fielder would be crossing paths twice, thus doubling the chance of collision. Which would be inconsistent with the purpose of the damn thing, at least to me it would.

Not at all. The BR is heading toward the colored portion of the base. There is little chance of the BR or coach being able to recognize the issue in time to adjust the BR's route. That BR is going to run into F3 or if able to check up, abandon their effort to obtain 1B which could be OBS. Either way, the BR could be placed in jeopardy of serious injury.

The way it should be, the defender should be forced to abandon the base, field the ball and then return to the colored portion.

However, if coaches could coach and players play with just an iota of intelligence, there would be no market for the base to even exist. To me, including this piece of equipment did nothing more than weaken the resolve of a competitive game.

[HugoTafurst]

That settles it, get rid of the fricken safethy base......

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

That settles it, get rid of the fricken safethy base......

Are you kidding? Then coaches would have to actualy teach someone how to play the position properly.