Colored base question

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And people wonder why this gets screwed up. Well, I wonder how in the world this can get screwed up.

The double-base only applies when there is a play on the BR. 8.2.M

The BR must use the colored portion, the defense must use the white.
Two, AND JUST TWO exceptions:
1) If the throw or play to first is coming from foul territory on the right side, or
2) If a throw from another part of the field draws the defender into foul territory.

In the case where one of the two exceptions occur, the BR may, MAY use either portion of the base.

speaking from attending the advance camp this past week. The national staff was split down the middle on this (in terms of the defense) while all agreed that if the throw pulled F3 off the double base completely and into foul territory , F3 could return to the orange portion of the bag before BR to have an out. However, the split was when F3 was pulled off the white portion to the orange portion of the bag without losing contact with the double base. There was some debate among the 6 staffers and know real consensus.

But IMO reading the letter of the rule, the orange portion of the bag is in 'foul ground', thus no difference if contact with the double had been lost.

[RKBUmp]

Shouldnt have been debating it to long, this is from July 2011 rules clarifications.

Rule 8 Batter-Runner and Runner
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.)

[BretMan]

There was a debate about this here last year. Somewhere in the midst of it, I emailed "a top ranking national ASA official". The answer I got was almost verbatim the same as the interpretation offered above...as was the scenario I presented with the "jumping fielder"...except that it pre-dated the publishing of that clarification by a little over a month. Apparently, my email may have been the impetus for the topic being discussed on their web site.

What was strange was that, at the time, this interpretation was contrary to previously published case book interpretations that said the fielder had to drawn completely off the base and completely into foul ground, such that touching the white base would require crossing over the colored one, before being allowed to use the orange bag.

If that's the way they want it called...then that's the way we'll call it. But this really does seem to be a "rule change" precipitated by a "regime change" among the ASA powers-that-be. They kind of slipped this one in there on us while nobody was looking!

[RKBUmp]

If a "regime change" has decided they want to change the way this is called, then maybe they should get the published rules clarification off the internet and get a new one published.

[Umpteenth]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

A first baseman who has fielded a grounder in fair territory is required to use the white part of the bag. This is clear. If that fielder goes to the colored part, the intention of the rule would have me assume that the runner gets whatever part she wants, right?

Did I just make any sense?

Joe in Florida

You describe a ground ball to F3. F3 fields the ball (cleanly) and touches the orange part of the base.

Your question is, "What obligation does the B/R have?" IMJ, F3 has not touched the proper portion of the bag because the ball was fielded in fair territory. The B/R, still has an obligation to touch the colored base, UNLESS there is risk of collision. I would not penalize B/R for using the white base if the two bodies were in close proximity. This is a HTBT situation.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And people wonder why this gets screwed up. Well, I wonder how in the world this can get screwed up.

The double-base only applies when there is a play on the BR. 8.2.M

The BR must use the colored portion, the defense must use the white.
Two, AND JUST TWO exceptions:
1) If the throw or play to first is coming from foul territory on the right side, or
2) If a throw from another part of the field draws the defender into foul territory.

In the case where one of the two exceptions occur, the BR may, MAY use either portion of the base.

That doesn't answer his question at all. I know not to put words in your mouth, but if this is your answer, you're obviously implying something and leaving us to guess. If you're saying this answers his question, this leads me to believe (guess, really) that you are saying that in the following scenario, the BR must still use the colored portion of the bag.

Ball is fielded by or thrown to F3, who is not yet on the bag. F3, with the ball, runs to the bag, crosses in front of the runner and touches the COLORED portion of the bag. Does runner have to touch the colored part still, or can he/she go to the white?

I see at least 3 ways to justify allowing BR to touch white in this case (not to mention the intent of the base in the first place), but if you are simply quoting the rule and saying that answers the question, without explaining the interpretation of that rule, it sound like you're saying BR must still go to the colored portion.

Please correct whatever assumption I've made that is wrong.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

There was a debate about this here last year. Somewhere in the midst of it, I emailed "a top ranking national ASA official". The answer I got was almost verbatim the same as the interpretation offered above...as was the scenario I presented with the "jumping fielder"...except that it pre-dated the publishing of that clarification by a little over a month. Apparently, my email may have been the impetus for the topic being discussed on their web site.

This (and RK's comment) is not what the question is. The OP is not about a throw drawing F3 into foul ground - I think our call is clear there. The OP is about F3's stupidity drawing F3 into foul ground. I think it's clear that we don't have an out here... but the question he had was whether BR can go to white in that case.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

This (and RK's comment) is not what the question is...

I get that. Unlike some posters, I understood the the original question without any problem!

I was commenting on some of the other poster's comments that went off on a bit of a tangent.

Irish posted the "exceptions to the rule" that state when a batter-runner or fielder may legally use the opposite bases, okla21fan commented on one of those exceptions based on his recent clinic experience, then RKB posted an interpretation relating to those comments.

All of which really has no direct bearing on the question raised in the first post.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I get that. Unlike some posters, I understood the the original question without any problem!

Irish posted the "exceptions to the rule" that state when a batter-runner or fielder may legally use the opposite bases, okla21fan commented on one of those exceptions based on his recent clinic experience, then RKB posted an interpretation relating to those comments.

All of which really has no direct bearing on the question raised in the first post.

The question, really, is - do one of these exceptions apply, and/or after the fielder proceeds to the wrong bag, is there still a play on.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Actually, Steve answered the question in the OP which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the rules pertaining to the double base and BR.

My post was a simple explanation of the rule, not directed at anything in particular except to note that some people have a tendency to read into situations or rules.

Let's see if I can make it a little more simple. On a play on the BR there are two bases, one for the defense and one for the offense (save an instance where one of the exceptions occur).

If a fielder steps over the white and doesn't touch the white, the fielder still hasn't touched the base since the colored portion officially does not exist for the purpose of retiring the BR.

I think Joe is looking for explicit direction from the rule book when there is no need. If the defense did not execute the proper procedure to put out the BR, the BR must be safe.

Now, the question is may the BR touch the white portion and be considered to have touched 1B. According to the rule, the answer is no since the only allowance for the BR to be safe when there is a play at 1B (save an instance where on eof the exceptions occur), is to touch the colored base.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Actually, Steve answered the question in the OP which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the rules pertaining to the double base and BR.

My post was a simple explanation of the rule, not directed at anything in particular except to note that some people have a tendency to read into situations or rules.

Let's see if I can make it a little more simple. On a play on the BR there are two bases, one for the defense and one for the offense (save an instance where one of the exceptions occur).

If a fielder steps over the white and doesn't touch the white, the fielder still hasn't touched the base since the colored portion officially does not exist for the purpose of retiring the BR.
O
I think Joe is looking for explicit direction from the rule book when there is no need. If the defense did not execute the proper procedure to put out the BR, the BR must be safe.

Now, the question is may the BR touch the white portion and be considered to have touched 1B. According to the rule, the answer is no since the only allowance for the BR to be safe when there is a play at 1B (save an instance where on eof the exceptions occur), is to touch the colored base.

And the call is SAFE since the runner has passed the base before the fielder tagged it (pending appeal).

[bainsey]

What if the batter-runner slides into the white base, and remains there (assuming there's a play at first)? The BR doesn't have to go back to the base, so the appeal time is done, or can we go right to calling the runner out for interference?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bainsey

What if the batter-runner slides into the white base, and remains there (assuming there's a play at first)? The BR doesn't have to go back to the base, so the appeal time is done, or can we go right to calling the runner out for interference?

Interference with what?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Interference with what?

The play at first base. Essentially, wouldn't a slide exclusively into the white base only possible if the batter-runner leaves the three-foot running lane?

[CecilOne]

White base touch, slide or whatever, only INT if the BR hinders, impedes or confuses the covering fielder.