double base discussion

[Tru_in_Blu]

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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".

[Tru_in_Blu]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[Tru_in_Blu]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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).

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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).

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[Dakota]

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.

[Rich Ives]

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

[Tru_in_Blu]

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[Tru_in_Blu]

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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

A lot of people can't grasp that concept.