Errant throw / Safety base
 

With the clarification/interp from Jul 2011 that an errant throw that causes F3 to jump and come down on the non-white portion of first base now resulting in an OUT...perhaps we need a clarification to this clarification.

I would like to see it in writing that an errant throw to F3 that causes OBS with BR, specifically excluded. Just to eliminate the potential argument from crafty coaches that the same logic should apply in this sitch.

Of course, the answer is: "Coach, the rule is specific. Errant throw only applies to the safety base."

I don't know why ASA had to clarify it. It was clear to begin with. I guess it didn't hurt though.

The "wreck" was once covered in the rules supplement. I believe it is still there.

The clarification was a reversal in interpretation. In my PERSONAL opinion, I do not agree with it because it contradicts the purpose of the bases existence, but I will call it and teach it as they wish.

I have, and would support, any properly called obstruction on an errant throw. The rule and interpretation allowing the defense to use the colored portion of the base ONLY for the purpose of attempting to retire the BR. It does not allow any exemption to any other rule.

+1

Hate this interp. If this is what they want, just give us a big wide bag and drop all of the rules about who can use what.

xtreamump
 

Hate this interp. If this is what they want, just give us a big wide bag and drop all of the rules about who can use what.

Alot of trouble with this here, teaching Umpires. I use KISS (Keep it simple Stupid).

The only good thing that I have seen come out of the double first base is now there are not nearly as many three foot lane violations. The runners know that they need to get to the colored base and no long have the argument "I just went out of the lane at the last second to step on the base." Other than that, the rule is a joke. It's an even bigger joke to think that a defender can retrieve a ball on an errant throw and come back to touch the colored portion. Awarding the defense with another 15 inches because of an errant throw? Ridiculous.

I don't see any double bases in boys games....:confused:

The whole double base with, interps that allows players to go to one or the other depending on situations is a nightmare.
Sort of messes up the whole intent in my humble opinion.
Started off as a nice thing that turns ugly.

I HATE IT NOW.

I don't see it as being nightmarish. If the play comes from the foul side, they may switch. They don't have to switch.

Consider the alternative in USSSA: up until this year, the offense and defense could never switch on any initial play on the batter-runner. Ever.

Now THAT was a safety issue if I ever heard one.

I guess some of the biggest issues I have had is with all the misinterpretations that have gone on in different codes by different coaches and umpires. Have had coaches scream at me that "Don't I understand that either player can go to either one anytime. That is what their UIC told them in a clinic". I sort of think I have seen more collisions with it than without. I have not done an actual study though. Just a perception. Some codes try and tell you that if the errant throw pulls the defensive player to the orange, the offensive player is supposed to switch. Now that is what I am told. That would seem like you are giving the defense a bonus for a bad throw and the onus on an offensive player to decide when to switch. Some places or locals have butchered this safety issue. That is why it is a nightmare to me. Probably because of place Ive been or UIC's giving me bogus interps.

Probably if everyone knows the right way it is supposed to be, it would be a good thing.

I think you hit the nail on the head: if things functioned like a well-oiled machine, we wouldn't have any problems.

But when you have a loose screw giving out bad advice to coaches and umpires, you're bound to have problems. This is why we have procedures available to teams so that they may have bad interpretations such as these corrected: protest! Get the real answer (hopefully) from people who (presumably) know for certain what the rules actually say.

I don't think that there are any that say the batter-runner must switch. They say that in these cases the batter-runner may switch. To me, that makes sense.

If the B/R is going full-bore to the colored base, it would be unreasonable to force/require her to make a last second course correction. That would tip the balance in favor of the defense. The runner may not even recognize that the throw is off-line, if she is focused on the bag and running through it. And yet she still has the option of switching to the white bag which may allow her to avoid a collision.

On the small handful of plays where the offense and defense can legally switch bags, those exceptions make sense, too. For instance, if the fielder is over in foul ground and is forced to still use the white base, you have just put the offense and the defense on a criss-crossing collision course. Allowing them to switch on a play like that would tend to reduce the chance for a collision.

But you are right- the different interpretations of the double first base offered by different sanctioning bodies can lead to some confusion! That's why it is imperative for us, as umpires, to thoroughly understand the particular interpretations for whichever association we're working for. It doesn't bother so much when the coaches have it wrong, but it does when the umpires do!

At the risk of being labeled a clone with a blind allegiance to any one sanctioning body :eek: I will say that, if we must use the double base, I think that ASA has best defined and interpreted the rule (well, except for the recent change about an errant throw pulling the fielder directly to the colored base- that kind of sucks).

ASA has- what, 2 or 3?- situations where the offense and defense may legally switch bases, In each of those cases, it is allowed so that the players can actually avoid a collision, instead of forcing them to do something that might make a collision more likely.

You're not looking hard enough. :)

NFHS baseball rules offer the double base as a "state adoption" and covers it's usage in their baseball rule book.

They may allow it, but I haven't seen it.

It's a shame that they invented a rule that was needed only because runners weren't taught how to run correctly. I think that poor coaching should NOT lead to rules changes.

xtreamump
 

because runners weren't taught how to run correctly.

Teaching this ASA Rule is easy, getting the Umpire to think like this is hard.
Great threads.

Do not see what the problem is....

The book makes the double base one large base both in ASA / NFHS.

Also tells us how to can it.

Until it is changed... play ball.

Little biased aren't we?

How about coaches teach players how to play first base?

F3 has become a hiding place for hitters with little speed or range, in softball AND baseball. Even the pros don't play the position as well as they should for all the money they make.

Runners have a right to the base. Defender should never have their foot on the top of the base, so if the runner steps on the fielder's ankle or foot, you have a serious UC issue.

Only for a play on a runner, not a BR.

Question, Did I miss something?
We were talking about an errant throw pulling F3 on to the orange bag and the batter runner being out?
Doesn't that fall in to the one big bag category with a batter runner?
8-2-M-5

I have no problem with coaches teaching, which would be nice to see.
But am I mistaken in thinking they are the ones that ask for the double base?

Just semantics, I guess...

The term "one big bag" is generally used to explain how the double base is regarded on plays where the batter-runner has already reached/passed first base (ie: has transformed from "a batter-runner" to "a runner").

You could put it this way:

After the batter-runner has reached/passed first base, then the double base always becomes "one big bag".

On the initial play against a batter-runner, almost all of the time it's treated as two separate bases, with just a couple of exceptions. Sometimes it's treated as "one big bag".

Yeah, pretty much the way I was thinking. Rabbit, that is where I was in my response. We teach it becomes one big bag for a runner, so I tend to avoid providing the same status for a rare exception involving a BR.

Goodness, I sure do. About 100%.

MOST of the time, this statement is untrue. If you don't see what the problem is, you're part of the problem - please reread the rule or head to a clinic. (No offense intended)

This is the interpretation that AZ has adopted for HS play.

Most, if not all, of the school fields do not have the double first base, but we do have some schools that play their home games and tournaments at the city fields where the double base is standard. If the double base is present, we treat it as one big base for everybody.

xtreamump
 

What is the Official Consensus on, BR hits a hard grounder to F6, BR beats the throw and only touches the white bag, now the F3 touches the R1 before she returns back to 1B, and says "Hey Blue she did not use the SAFETY BASE ? I figured out how to Edit, this is great, I am going to finish the night with a happy ending.

Sounds like a properly executed live ball appeal to me. R1 is out.

out!

(This is not the "forum view"... but rather the call we're required to make.)

Since you highlighted the words "safety bag", do you think that there was something special/unusual about the fielder using those words?

Technically, the rule book might not call it a "safety bag". For instance, ASA and NFHS use the terms "colored portion" or "contrasting colored portion" to describe the part of the base located in foul ground. I've been told that ASA specifically avoids the term "safety base" at the advice of their legal council.

If the runner misses the correct base, and the fielder tags her before she gets back, accompanied by a verbal statement that she's appealing the missed base...that's good enough for me. I have an out.

Even if she doesn't verbalize it, if her actions are clear, I have an appeal and and out.

xtreamump
 

Thank you. I am dedicated, & motivated to make you a happy Umpire on this site. I know what the required call is, I was trying to change the topic.

xtreamump
 

[QUOTE=mbcrowder;829040]MOST of the time, this statement is untrue. If you don't see what the problem is, you're part of the problem - please reread the rule or head to a clinic. (No offense intended)

Sarcasm at its best, Thanks

[QUOTE=xtreamump;829240]I have been guilty of sarcasm here, no doubt. But not in this post. I was trying to be clear and to the point. Seriously - if you don't see what the problem is in the scenario described, you are contributing to the problem itself. The problem here is not the rule - it's that a decent number of umpires are ruling this incorrectly - creating inconsistency - hence those that don't get it are the REASON for the problem.

Where's the sarcasm?

Not sure of the purpose of your 2nd sentence. As far as changing the topic, please don't make that a habit. Threads get muddy that way.

We have a hard enough time staying on topic once someone brings up beer...

I'll drink to that...

What'll you have?

xtreamump
 

If its OK with mike, I don't drink. I know that is not an Umpire Tradition. But hay different strokes for different folks. I see muddy is ok for the BUDDIE SYSTEM on here.

xtreamump
 

Not Sure ? If someone has a different view than you. They are wrong and you attack. Also do not tell me what to do, my habits are mine, you can't apply any (code) to that. Have a beer with your buddies clear out the muddy in your thread and continue to march:eek:

Maybe there's an idiom you're using that is not translating well... but I see no correlation between THAT, and "I am dedicated, & motivated to make you a happy Umpire on this site."

I said please.

PS - I disagree that I attack when others are wrong. I attack back when others make smart comments at me claiming I'm wrong when the error is, in fact, their inability to read what they themselves are replying to.

xtreamump
 

The translation of my idiom is I would like to use this site as a place of learning, as well as having some fun... And because you said please I guess its OK if you tell me what to do.

Whatever you're buying!! :D

I have some standards, but I'm not nearly as fussy as some here. ;)

Next time my wife and I visit Florida (usually Palm Beach area), I'll give you a shout. :D

First round's on me.

Beer! Over the weekend I sampled my latest brew, a Pale Ale that was patterened after Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. Nice citrusy aroma, good balance between malt and hops, and medium-bodied. First brew I've done in over 3 years, and it's one of my best!

Time to brew again, otherwise, I'm gonna run out of stock! If you guys are ever near Dallas, let me know.

I need to find a workable clone recipe for Young's Oatmeal Stout. As it is no longer available, I would still like to be able to sample it.