double base discussion
 

I had a play in slow pitch tonight that I thought was pretty cut and dry.

Runner on 1B, 1 out. Batter lines out to F6. Runner was about 4 steps off the base and starts heading back. He sees the ball fired over from F6 and ducks to avoid getting hit in the head. In doing so, he never made it back to the base. F3 catches the throw and I ring up the runner on the double play.

Offense coach comes out to appeal, stating that F3 only touched the colored portion of the base. Knowing that the base in this case is one big base I didn't even pay attention to if he was on white, orange, or in between.

After the game coach and I discuss and he shows me rule 8.2.N. His contention is that since "N" appears only under 8.2 The batter-runner is out, all of the sub-headings apply only to BR.

I tried to convince him that the relevant portions of "N" on this play were:
7. On balls hit to the outfield with no play on the BR advancing to first base, the BR may touch the white or contrasting color portion. Should the BR return, the runner and defense can use the white or contrasting color portion.

and,

8. When tagging up on a fly ball, the white or contrasting color portion of the base may be used. On an appeal for the runner leaving the base too soon, the defense may use the white or contrasting color of the base.

When I searched this matter, I came across a phrase that IrishMafia had included in a post:

"I assume you are referring to a batter-runner since there is no double-base for a runner."

I'm totally on board with that, but is it noted in the rule book?

It would seem that the section on the double base might be better suited in a different section.

As your red portions do not apply to BR, they would fit saying R and being in "runner is not out".

I think it's more a matter of bad editing in the rule book. Rule 8-2 subsections A thru M and O detail those occasions that the BR would be declared out.

Subsection N does not carry forward the argument that "The BR is out when..."

That section does not seem to belong in this space. It's almost a stand alone listing of events that would warrant its own "section" somewhere in Rule 8.

The coach's daughter had the ASA rules app on her phone and when she searched for "double base" it brought her to rule 8-2. And that led to the discussion that the runner should not be out because the defense used only the colored portion of the bag.

I know I got the call right, but I'm having a hard time explaining why it's right to someone else without specific references.

Terminology is important.

BR (in all of those rules you quote) means Batter-Runner. Period.

In the original play you posted, you don't have a batter-runner. You have a runner. None of the parts of the rule that mention a BR are relevant to a runner.

Looked at that way, the rule is clear, and is in the right place in the rulebook.

I'll agree that it belongs in Section 8.

It does NOT belong in the section about when a BR is out.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Why do you think it doesn't belong in the section about when a BR is out...

BR is the only one that can be out for touching the wrong half of the base. It cannot be in the section about when a RUNNER is out because a runner cannot be called out for touching the wrong half of the base (which, incidentally, is how you explain it to the coach, and when he trots out rule 8.2 and you point out to him that ENTIRE SECTION is about the batter-runner, and the player he's complaining about is a runner... the discussion is over).

What about the red part of the OP?

It doesn't belong in the section because it doesn't follow the protocol for when a BR would be out. The first 2 sub-bullets are describing when a batted ball is fair or foul. What does THAT have to do with when a BR is out?

The issue was not about a runner touching whatever base, it was about the defense allegedly using the wrong base.

It doesn't belong because when tagging up on a fly ball, the runner can use either portion of the bag.

It doesn't belong because on an attempted pickoff the RUNNER may return to the white or colored portion of the base. What does THAT have to do with when a BR is out?

So it shouldn't be in the section about when the BR is out; it shouldn't be in the section about when the runner is out; it shouldn't be in the section about when the runner is not out.

It's a mish-mash of fair/foul, BR requirements and exceptions, and runner and defender allowances.

It belongs by itself as a stand alone entity somewhere in Rule 8.

I guess I would agree with you both a bit... the sections in red are not necessary AT ALL. I'm sure someone somewhere decided it needed to be clarified that a section of the book dedicated to when a BR is out doesn't apply to a runner. Whoever had that inserted was wrong. I would not have that part (tagging up ... or the pick off part either) in the book at all - but if it has to be there, you're right that it belongs elsewhere.

I would also agree that the heading part (M, before the subheadings) is worded very poorly if it's meant to follow the heading part of 8.2.

Recall that several years ago, the "orange" base essentially disappeared (became part of foul ground) once the BR reached 1B.

When ASA decided to change the double base rule to make it one big base once the BR has reached 1B, the editors of the book got things a bit muddled.

But, the only time orange/white makes any difference is when a play is being made on the BR at 1B.

Otherwise, it is just one big base.

Can this be proven in the book? Maybe not, but it is the interpretation.

The proper way to deal with a double base is to use the NCAA method.

Good to know then that "Different does not equate to wrong".

It is there because that portion of the rule defines the use of a double base.

IMO the location is efficient. Would you prefer they list everything after Paragraph 6 as an "Exception" as that is what the remaining paragraphs are.

Efficient may not be sufficient. Nor effective.

The rule book has too many entries buried in obscure places. I do think there have been improvements in recent years, but still could be a lot better. Maybe even more efficient!

Googling or searching for "double base" and finding it under the heading it's under is at least confusing.

A lot of people can't grasp that concept.

Of course, it is effective. Should an umpire ignore a ruling because s/he cannot find it? Shouldn't an umpire review all the rules, not just go looking for one when s/he needs it?


Personally, I don't think paragraphs 8 & 9 need be anywhere in the book. I do, however, believe there should be a definition of "base" and "double base" somewhere in the rules other than the dimensions

I didn't pick up on anyone ignoring any rulings. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't have a photographic memory. I remember some things, and some things better than others. Some things get muddled because I do 2 sanctions. Only 2. My brain would probably short circuit if I tried doing more.

Again, I can't speak for everyone, but I do review all the rules. And when I apply them in a game, I'm usually pretty confident about what I've done. But occasionally, I get to wonder if I had it right - either on my own or because a coach questioned something. Or maybe I confused it with the other hat I wear. Then I go try to find it in the book(s). Usually the index helps, but sometimes I can't put my finger on it quickly enough. My book is dog-eared and highlighted all over the place. And I carry it forward from year to year. (Probably by 2066, every passage will be highlighted and I won't be able to find a darn thing.)

So yeah, I guess I will go looking for a rule when I need one cuz they just don't all fit into the memory stick. I recall seeing it, reading it, but I don't recall where it lives. You've suggested on occasion that I check Rule Supplements. That's a great suggestion and has clarified some things for me. I know, for instance, that a batter can carry the bat all around the bases if he so chooses. I had a partner tell a batter he couldn't do that and not to do it again. I re-educated him between innings and discussed it after the game. Hopefully he'll remember it if he ever needs to again. Not sure he'll know where to find it, though.

That is why one of the first things a clinician should point out to a newbie is the Index.

Ahhh, the old argument of rule book errors, omissions, conflicts, etc. They aren't just found in the ASA book. Every book has them. As a quick example, look at the NFHS book under 3-5. It's headlined COACHING. And yet, under Articles 5 and 6, the book refers to offensive team personnel, not coaches. Wouldn't those articles be better suited under rule 3-6, which talks about Bench and Field conduct?

As for the OP, I'm really surprised the discussion went any further once you pointed out to the coach 8-2-N-8. It clearly says the runner is out when he/she fails to tag up on a caught fly ball, and the defense appeals using either bag. Regardless of where it is in the book, it's in there. Yeah, perhaps all of 8-2-N deserves its own section, just like it does in the Fed book under 8-10, to be less confusing to the reader. But if a rule clearly says something and it just happens to be "misplaced" in the book, that doesn't make the rule null and void.