Errant throw / Safety base

[tcannizzo]

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."

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

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 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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

+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.

[x-tremeump]

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).

[EsqUmp]

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....

[NSABill]

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.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by NSABill

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.

[NSABill]

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.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by NSABill

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.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by NSABill

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.

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 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.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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

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.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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.

[x-tremeump]

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.