Dropped 3rd Strike - Throw to 1st
 

I know what the rule says about white bag/orange bag..........but............I'm seeing more and more coaches "teaching" catchers and 1st base players that when the ball is dropped the 1st base player automatically sets up in foul territory awaiting the throw and the catcher, knowing this, throws the ball to first in foul territory to get the out.

It's intentional but it's also the ball being caught in foul territory because that's where the throw was. I've never seen anyone call the runner safe because the first base player didn't tag the white bag.

I'm think'n this ain't legit....it's not an errant throw. What you guys do?

Well, apparently you don't know what the rule says about the white/orange bag...because if you did, you'd know that this is a legal play!

Though I will to say that it might be dependent on what rule set you're using. For ASA and high school, their rules specifically say that if the throw is coming from foul ground that the fielder may set up on the colored base to receive the throw.

Other organizations may not clearly state this in their rules.

Legal, all rule sets (both softball and baseball).

They use orange bags in baseball?? :p

While is isn't necessarily "illegal", how can you be sure without knowing from where the throw was coming?

Maybe I'm missing something, but the use of the orange bag is only for throws coming from foul territory on the 1B side of the field. I don't see any indication of that in the OP

... as well as errant throws from elsewhere, correct? A bad throw from F6 that pulls F3 to the orange side is legal...

Based on past threads, seems to me the only time F3 can't use orange is if she sets up there before the throw is released from any fielder other than F2.

;)The best I can remember is that if the throw pulls F3 to the foul side, then F3 can touch the orange for the out no matter who throws the ball.

There's a difference between F3 setting up on the orange bag, and being pulled to the orange bag.

Mike's point is that rules on the double-first (ASA 8-2-M, FED 8-10, etc.) only allow F3 to set up on the orange bag when the throw is coming from the first-base side of foul territory. Should the uncaught third strike go to the catcher's left into the third-base side of foul ground, the rules do not allow F3 to set up on the orange bag.

The problem I have with the rules is that the BR may not know where the loose ball went. If she sees F3 set up on the orange side on an uncaught third strike, and she beats the throw and touches only the white bag, is she susceptible to an appeal for missing first if the throw came from the third-base side of foul territory? Or would you rule obstruction on F3, even if she is well into foul territory (her foot is touching the side of the bag furthest into foul, giving the BR a straight path at the bag)?

8-2-M-4:
On any force out attempt from the foul side of first base, the defense and the batter-runner may use either the white or colored portion of the base.

That means the throw is originating from the right side of the catcher in foul territory, such as near the on-deck circle next to the first base dugout.

What if the throw is coming from the opposite on-deck circle?

I see what you're getting at, Manny. I know this has been discussed before, but I don't remember what the consensus was.

The rules say that the batter-runner may use the white base in cases where the defense is legitimately using the colored base, using one of the exceptions to the rule.

But they don't specifically say what happens when the defense is using the colored base in conflict with the rules and that forces the batter-runner to switch over to the white.

It seems like obstruction must come into play.

Just so we're clear...........I was talking about a dropped 3rd strike that was in front of the catcher behind the plate. BR heads to first, 1st baseman chooses to sets up on orange bag cuz runner is running inside baseline to first I suppose (or was taught this on dropped 3rd strike), catcher picks ball up in front of her behind plate and then throws to first in foul territory.........choice was to do it this way by defense, no errant throws. I suppose you could say ball was in foul territory when catcher moved to foul territory by choice to make throw.

All I'm asking is that.........Is this a play that falls under the white/orange errant throw even if it's intentional?

It does not have to be an errant throw if the throw is from foul ground on the 1st base side of the field. That is, between the 1st base line and it extension and the dead ball line.

I don't recall the rules saying anything about the fielder setting up; just what part or parts of the base the fielder and runner can use.
8-2-M-4:
On any force out attempt from the foul side of first base, the defense and the batter-runner may use either the white or colored portion of the base.

8-2-M-4:
On any force out attempt from the foul side of first base, the defense and the batter-runner may use either the white or colored portion of the base.

Yes, Yes, not technically a "force out"; but the wording is such to distinguish BR going to 1st from other situations.

If the ball is behind the plate it is in foul territory and the throw would be coming from foul territory. Perfectly legal for the defense to setup in foul and take the throw on the colored portion of the base.

from foul ground on the 1st base side of the field.
That is, between the 1st base line and it extension and the dead ball line. ??????????????????

If the ball is directly behind the plate it is on the foul side if 1st base line.

If I'm "interpreting" the posts I'm hearing ...... on the DK3, if the ball is on the 1st base side of the plate the throw from foul ground to the first baseman setting up on the orange bag on the 1st base side is legal.

If the ball rolls to the 3rd base side (not far) of the plate and the catcher picks the ball up, moves to foul ground on the 1st base side and throws to the first baseman on the orange bag, this "isn't" ok? Remember, in the OP I mentioned that this play was "intentional" and not an errant throw.

The rule is about where the THROW comes from.

KISS, F2 can pick up a D3K anywhere and set up foul and throw to F3 on the colored bag.

Set up in foul territory on the 1st base side and, yes, it makes a difference.

I don't see how you can hold the BR accountable for not knowing where the ball is being thrown from on an uncaught third strike, unless maybe you expect her to get a signal from the first base coach to tell her she can or cannot run in fair territory and touch the white bag.

So, U3K ends up just behind the left-handed batter's box. F2 picks it up and throws to F3 who is straddling the firstbase line just short of the bags. BR, thinking the ball went to the first base side of foul territory, runs in fair territory to touch white. F2's throw hits the BR in the right shoulder. Do we call her out for a runner's lane violation or not?

1 - The rule is about avoiding collisions.

2 - BR should see if the fielder is in foul
3 - if fielder straddling the line before the ball, OBS
4 - throw hitting the BR, ITUJ
5 - not a violation if throw from 1st base foul ground

6 - all variations from the norm, ITUJ

3 is not true. At least not yet, and not on its own.

My quickly typed point being that it could be OBS if BR hindered; but mainly not a RL violation if fielder is blocking it. Sorry.

The best way to handle a double first base is to cut off the colored part and throw it in the garbage. :D

Been saying that for the decade or so it has been around. Unfortunately, then the coaches would have to teach the players how to properly play the position. Of course, you would first have to find someone to teach the coaches. :rolleyes:

Thank you for finishing my statement !! I thought that people on here would understand that if F2 was in Foul territory on the third base side, the F2 would not attempt a throw to the colored base ? Sorry for not being clear on a very simple play.

I agree it should be obvious, but the first year this came out, that seemed to be a point many umpire's just couldn't grasp. Quite a few couldn't grasp the idea of the ball coming from anywhere besides from the foul side of 1BL

U3K, ball lands in RIGHT handed batters box in foul ground. Left handed batter running down to first, left handed catcher pics up the ball. F3 is straddling both orange and white bags. BR running toward orange. Ball is thrown to white. Ball arrives half second before BR. There's a collision, chest to chest, between F3 and BR.

Call?

Out.

Assuming non-malicious, a warning that offense is responsible to avoid collisions.

yes, non-malicious. F3 standing on/over both bases didn't lead to this? Doesn't the rule state that F3 must use the white and BR must go to the colored base in this situation? The BR was doing that. The F3 was not. She was in the way.

Just asking...

No part of what you described included the runner being hindered before she was out. As long as F3 was on white, nothing requires her to be exclusively on white, unless doing so hinder/impedes the BR.

I don't go around throwing out warnings unless I am actually going to take action on a repeated act.

Here, you have a defender standing where they don't belong and your going to warn a the offensive team because there was contact?

For that matter, why don't you warn the defensive team not to set up where they don't belong?

Since you issued a warning, if that same exact play happens again, please tell us what your call is going to be.

Expanding on prior reply.

I suspect we are all focusing differently on the wording used by LI in the posted play. What is a "half second"? A fast/above-average runner gets to 1st base ~3.0 seconds (I believe 2.6 is the fastest ever acknowledged as legitimately recorded; anything above 3.5 is considered plodding by clinics). With that information, a "half second" is ~10 feet from first.

If you see an out by 10 feet (two+ full strides), I agree that the BR had more than enough time to be accountable to avoid a chest-to-chest collision. A warning for an unsporting act is appropriate; 10 feet is almost enough space to be considered malicious.

If, as I suspect some of you are interpreting "half second" to mean a much closer play (a split second, an instant, foot above the bag when ball hits mitt), then we have a BR realistically attempting to be safe and running to the base she is supposed to, and not initiating/making avoidable contact that is unsporting. No warning, bad defensive play, but just a train wreck, and out.

But, unless she alters her path to avoid, and/or slows down to minimize the unavoidable contact, before the ball arrives, I still have an out without obstruction as long as the ball arrives first. I'm not confident enough umpires would read a path alteration prior to the ball arriving to avoid that contact as obstruction, nor do I believe enough BR's consider that option versus running to the base with their head down.

The play was "bang bang" half a stride...but the ball did beat her to the bag. I was PU and I not only was watching the throw down to first and the path of the BR for possible 3 foot lane interference but also noted that she "put her head down and ran" to the orange bag. My partner and I got together after the play and discussed whether she altered her path to the bag. The answer was no. We ruled that it was an out. We explained the call to the OC and the DC and there was no argument. But the OC asked me the rule interpretation after the game. He said that he didn't think she could set up on both bags like she did.

Thanks for the explanation. And no, there was no need for a warning to the offense. What would I be warning her for?