Observations: 1st complete season with the "safety" base

[Dakota]

Since nearly all fields this year had the double base installed at first (for the first time), here are some personal observations...

Most teams simplify the rule to defense-white, offense-orange, regardless of whether the throw is coming from 1st-base side foul territory or not. Have seen a few "dancing into first" situations on D3K as a result as the fielder is hanging over orange to take the throw, with her foot still on white, while the runner tries to tippy-toe onto the orange base.

BU's persist in allowing the defense to use the orange as an extended base for stretching to the throw, even in situations where the orange base is just dirt. As a spectator, I saw two live ball appeals on a caught fly where the defense used the orange base, and one bad throw where the F3 stretched into foul territory for the catch with her toe on orange - OUT in all three.

Most plays at first the double base was a non-factor.

Any comments / observations from your games?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
Since nearly all fields this year had the double base installed at first (for the first time), here are some personal observations...

Most teams simplify the rule to defense-white, offense-orange, regardless of whether the throw is coming from 1st-base side foul territory or not. Have seen a few "dancing into first" situations on D3K as a result as the fielder is hanging over orange to take the throw, with her foot still on white, while the runner tries to tippy-toe onto the orange base.

BU's persist in allowing the defense to use the orange as an extended base for stretching to the throw, even in situations where the orange base is just dirt. As a spectator, I saw two live ball appeals on a caught fly where the defense used the orange base, and one bad throw where the F3 stretched into foul territory for the catch with her toe on orange - OUT in all three.

Most plays at first the double base was a non-factor.

Any comments / observations from your games?

As you know, I don't care for the double-base. I consider it's existence a result of weak coaching and poor 1B mechanics. IOW, the players and coaches are too dumb to learn the correct way to play the position.

That aside, dealing with them is not as difficult as many umpires make it out to be. It is real simple. If there is no play at first, it doesn't exist.

If there is a routine play at first, the moment the runner touches the colored portion, that part of the base disappears. If there is a play coming from fair territory and the runner fails to touch the colored portion of the base, they are subject to a "live ball" missed base appeal.

The only time the offense and defense "may" swap usage is when a play to put the BR out is coming from foul territory.

I think that just about covers it.

[CecilOne]

Agree with Dakota on the lack of understanding, especially the use of white by defense on foul ground plays, and even BU calling outs for touching white when there is no play. Also agree with IM on coaching and mechanics, but I'm convinced it's usually safer and hope it stays.

What is really a pain is the imaginary home plate "line" used by seniors and now some corec. It can be difficult to get a line of sight when the throw is coming from 1st or you are alone and the previous play was at a base. Not to mention getting used to the wide turns and foul ground base path from 3rd to home.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
That aside, dealing with them is not as difficult as many umpires {or teams} make it out to be.

I agree. Which is what I was getting at.

That is to say, teams don't seem to want to think about it wrt plays coming from foul territory; too many umpires treat it like an extended base, and even "recognize" it after the BR has acheived 1st, etc.

One thing that would help would be an official case play or two regarding this "errant throw" exception.

Whenever I have made a call based on the "missed catch" interpretation of what that means (I've done that 2 or 3 times this year - disallowing the use of the orange base for extra stretch, basically), I get this look from the coach like I am making up my own rule. Nothing terribly unusual about that , but it would be nice to have something other than web discussion board renditions of conversations with national staff to fall back on!

[JEL]

We started using double base in my area about 5,or6 years ago. Seemed to cause some confusion then, but it has become just part of the game now. I guess we all just have to get used to new stuff. I can do with, or without the double base, but I also see it's benefits.

[Skahtboi]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

As you know, I don't care for the double-base. I consider it's existence a result of weak coaching and poor 1B mechanics. IOW, the players and coaches are too dumb to learn the correct way to play the position.

[/B]

As time goes by, I find myself more and more in this line of thinking. Scary....

[chuck chopper]

Most of the Leagues I UMP are altered-Fast pitch or slow pitch (and not very good). The slow pitch coaches love the fact that there are no more crashes. The Rec. Council Fast pitch and altered-fast pitch leagues are still clue-less. I cannot ever see 11-14 year old first basemen and catchers ever understanding when its OK for them to use the orange.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by chuck chopper
Most of the Leagues I UMP are altered-Fast pitch or slow pitch (and not very good). The slow pitch coaches love the fact that there are no more crashes. The Rec. Council Fast pitch and altered-fast pitch leagues are still clue-less. I cannot ever see 11-14 year old first basemen and catchers ever understanding when its OK for them to use the orange.

It's called "coaching", but will only work if the coach learns themselves and passes it on to his/her players.

[nelyak]

We have used the double bag in our leagues for many years.
Players, coaches, and umpires love it.
We use it in coed, men's SP, and girl's fast pitch, often in High School FP and when it is missing players and coaches wonder why.

It saves injuries, collisions, and whining to umps.

A 1st baseman can stretch to touch orange bag when play is coming from foul territory and the B/R can be called out.

Remember after 1st touch the orange bag ALWAYS disappears.

I find it easier to ump than a single base for many reasons. I guess it is all in what you are used to.

[bobbrix]

We've used double bases for years.

It's true (and yes, frustrating) at the lack of educated players/coaches/fans AND umpires who understand or have even read up on its use.

But, it definitely reduces collisions and all the arguments those bring about.

Let me stir the soup and agitate a few folks by suggesting a similar system for home plate. A second home plate, where the catcher is simply not allowed to stand between the runner and that plate else the runner from third is safe. That would easily eliminate 95% of the arguments/debates/training that follow the collisions & obstruction/interference decisions at home plate.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by bobbrix

We've used double bases for years.

It's true (and yes, frustrating) at the lack of educated players/coaches/fans AND umpires who understand or have even read up on its use.

But, it definitely reduces collisions and all the arguments those bring about.

Let me stir the soup and agitate a few folks by suggesting a similar system for home plate. A second home plate, where the catcher is simply not allowed to stand between the runner and that plate else the runner from third is safe. That would easily eliminate 95% of the arguments/debates/training that follow the collisions & obstruction/interference decisions at home plate.

How about the umpires just do their job to the point the players learn the proper manner to play the game or quit?

Maybe a double-base at every position. Or make every play a force play with a commitment line halfway. And we will need running lanes in which the runner must stay and the fielders cannot enter or cross to catch a ball.

Or eliminate running altogether and draw lines on the grass do designate the points a batter receives for a hit, just like some of the indoor batting cages have.

What the hell, let's just forget it, grab a cooler of beer and hit a round of 18. Nope, can't do that, I might hit someone with a golf ball. Oooh, oooh, I got it! We'll make everyone on the golf course wear a helmet, with a face mask, of course. And then.....

Point is, here is the game, here are the rules. Learn to play the game properly or be subject to the penalties for violating the rules. If you have any fear at all, find another game. There is no entitlement to play this game for you, nor a requirement for me to officiate what you may change it into.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by bobbrix
Let me stir the soup and agitate a few folks by suggesting a similar system for home plate. A second home plate, where the catcher is simply not allowed to stand between the runner and that plate else the runner from third is safe. That would easily eliminate 95% of the arguments/debates/training that follow the collisions & obstruction/interference decisions at home plate.

Boris Behncke, "Italy's Volcanoes: The Cradle of Volcanology" Is being a volcanologist a dangerous job? Is it? Goooood question … if we really feel the need to reason about dangers, it is not volcanoes that are dangerous. LIFE is dangerous. It is full of traps of all kinds, so if we feel like pondering on the dangers from volcanoes, it is appropriate to ponder about all the other dangers as well. In that case we would soon be in urgent need of an extended session at a psychiatrist's. Better enjoy life as long as this is possible, and better enjoy volcanoes and the fascinating search to unravel their secrets.

Larry Mounser physics teacher at Taylors College and is a visiting, associate lecturer at UNSW (Australia) An economist once told me that a country is in trouble when it starts producing more lawyers than engineers. Apparently, we passed that divide more than a decade ago and have been suffering the consequences ever since.

Schools are now frighteningly dangerous places. Excellent chemistry teachers are lining up to get into physics or, safest of all, maths. That's if they're staying in teaching at all, as even doddering old biologists know that if they just brush up against a female student while talking about human reproduction she can make an assault accusation that stays on their record forever.

Sheets of documentation and potential liabilities have reduced a state which once proudly hosted the Wyndham scheme and its massive, spine-skewing textbooks to the level of a nervous first-time babysitter where the main thing kids learn is how to fill out risk-assessment forms.

Like surfing, country fairs and any sport more dangerous than licking the back of a 3 kopeck stamp and sticking it into your stamp book, education is another institution which is falling victim to a country producing too many lawyers, and not enough commonsense. For oxygen-breathing bipeds, life is dangerous and often painful. Blame God, not Waverley Council.

"Everything that's fun in life is dangerous. And everything that isn't fun is dangerous too. It's impossible to be alive and safe."
(P. J. O'Rourke)

bobbrix,
Like they said.


[Edited by Dakota on Aug 8th, 2003 at 09:46 AM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

bobbrix,
Like they said.


[Edited by Dakota on Aug 8th, 2003 at 09:46 AM]

Sure, take the easy route and bring in profession help!

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Sure, take the easy route and bring in professional help!
[/B]

[bobbrix]

ha ... i knew i'd get some of you regulars going with that one!! maybe i'm just getting tired of those "dear in the headlights" looks we get when we try to explain things over and over and over and over to the coaches, etc


of all the boards i visit and/or chat on, this one is, without question, definitely the best