Double Base question

[obbay]

The problem you have with requiring the runner to switch to the white bag is that runners will generally be running straight to the orange one, like they're supposed to. If the fielder suddenly, at the last instant, gets pulled to the colored base, the runner isn't expected to make a split-second course correction, one that might not even be possible depending on how close to base the runner is.

exactly!

in U12 LL, the local umpires just made it hard and fast that if the fielder is not stepping on the white side, or the runner does not touch the orange, then they are not touching the base, period.

the play happened quickly so I'm not sure why the catcher was throwing from foul territory and/or the 1B caught it on the orange base- the hit was near the line.

the rules make it sound a lot more complicated. kind of like use whichever base you want to. I will never forget about 9 years ago when DD#1 was steamrolled by a freight train of a girl when the throw from the catcher drew her onto the orange bag. I've always taught my runners where the baseline is and to approach the base on the foul side of the line. I've also taught the 1B to stay on the fair side and even off the base if you need to create clear line between you and catcher. am I wrong?

 

[Kaizen]

There is also another exception that allows defense to use the orange bag on a throw that pulls the defender away from the white base.

The defense can use the colored base to complete the putout of a batter-runner when:
- An errant throw pulls the fielder from the white to the colored base.

A small but important distinction was made in our last state tournament that the exception is for an "errant throw pulling the defense off the white portion of the base into foul ground." In our state tournament semifinal game, a high throw caused 1B to jump up to make the catch. When she came back down, her legs splayed outwards and she only touched the colored base. After much discussion, the B/R was ruled safe because although it was an errant throw it did not pull the defense into foul ground.

 

[BretMan]

A small but important distinction was made in our last state tournament that the exception is for an "errant throw pulling the defense off the white portion of the base into foul ground." In our state tournament semifinal game, a high throw caused 1B to jump up to make the catch. When she came back down, her legs splayed outwards and she only touched the colored base. After much discussion, the B/R was ruled safe because although it was an errant throw it did not pull the defense into foul ground.

That was an older interpretation that's no longer valid.

More recent interpretations are more lenient. A sample play from the ASA case book, as well as an interpretation published under the "Rule Clarifications" on their website, support that a fielder jumping up to get a throw, then coming down on the colored base, would be an out.

Personally, I don't like that interpretation. But it is the current way the rule is to be enforced. The rule itself hasn't changed, just the way that it's interpreted. It used to be that the bad throw had to pull the fielder entirely past the base and into foul ground. Now, pulling the fielder directly from the white to colored base is the same thing.

When you think about it, the colored base IS entirely in foul ground, isn't it. So I guess that the throw in your game DID pull the fielder into foul ground.

 

[Kaizen]

Is the NFHS interpretation the same as ASA? It was a HS state tournament and the tv broadcasters said the state director confirmed that the interpretation was that the throw did not pull the defense into foul ground.

I don't like the newer ASA interpretation either. The intent of the double base rule is for player safety by reducing the chance of collisions. If the throw is high and the defense has the opportunity to jump straight up and come back down on the white base, they logically shouldn't be rewarded with an out if they kick one foot out to the colored base and miss the white base. The runner doesn't have any opportunity to avoid a collision by using the white base in this case because the defense's entire body is still over the white base. So then the defense gets both bases and the runner gets none.

 

[BretMan]

The high school (NFHS) rule reads the same as ASA, but I haven't found an exact interpretation that's the same. That could take some digging. Absent that, I would have to take the rule as it's written, verbatim.

So, again, where is the colored base located? Entirely in foul ground. If a throw pulls you to that base, then it has pulled you into foul ground!

I don't like the newer ASA interpretation either. The intent of the double base rule is for player safety by reducing the chance of collisions. If the throw is high and the defense has the opportunity to jump straight up and come back down on the white base, they logically shouldn't be rewarded with an out if they kick one foot out to the colored base and miss the white base. The runner doesn't have any opportunity to avoid a collision by using the white base in this case because the defense's entire body is still over the white base. So then the defense gets both bases and the runner gets none.

If the fielder is impeding the runner's path before the ball gets there, then it's obstruction. Award first base.

If the ball gets there first, then the runner's already out.

If the fielder suddenly and unavoidably moved into the runner's path, then if there is a collision it's not the runner's fault and it's not interference.

Sometimes, players try to occupy the same bit of real estate on the field and there's contact. Remember, we're talking about a fielder who suddenly moves into the runner's path. That can happen at any base. It could happen if you're using a single base. It could happen if you're using a triple base!

The original intent of the "pulled into foul ground" rule was to make using the double base even safer. If the fielder is over in foul ground, but is still required to touch the white base, that means the fielder would have to cross over directly in front of the runner to reach it. Then the double safety base ain't so darn safe! Instead of a safety base, you would have yourself a collision base.

The older interpretation I mentioned is actually injecting criteria into the rule that's not stated in the rule: That the errant throw had to pull the fielder completely off the base(s) and entirely over into foul ground.

The newer interpretation takes the rule literally, since the colored base is entirely in foul ground.

 

[obbay]

NSA game yesterday, I asked the base umpire about it and he basically said runner just goes to side where fielder is not, and fielder can touch whichever is closer

 

[MTR]

NSA game yesterday, I asked the base umpire about it and he basically said runner just goes to side where fielder is not, and fielder can touch whichever is closer

Consider the source

 

[MTR]

Yes it is about the same in NHFS. Our rule says must pull them to foul ground, at least in my book.

And where is the orange base located?

Every time we did it (went to the white bag if the fielder was on the orange) it worked fine. I am not sure what the commotion is about. The point is to avoid collisions. So if you are going to have them on the orange bag, what is the point of having it.

The point is that the runner doesn't have a vision range of 360 so s/he doesn't know from exactly where the throw is coming or whether it will pull the defender away from the white base. For that reason, the BR has the option of using either without penalty when the defender moves into foul ground.

As previously noted, and IMO the correct interpretation, the defender could not use the orange portion unless the play was coming FROM foul territory away from the base, not on the base in foul territory. Also IMO, that was more of a game oriented staff that maintained that you do not jeopardize the BR's well-being and reward the defense for poor play.

Since then the interpretation has done an about face and IMO allows poor play and over-thinking umpires and coaches to negate the purpose of the double-base. I don't know whether it is because it is believed to be too complicated (it is not) for the people playing, coaching and umpiring today's game or a fear of alienating the carrot chasers with intelligent rules that protect the players and the game.

When the regimes changed, there was a proposal to add a definition of "errant throw" since that was a determining factor in rules and interpretations, but gained zero support from umpire committees, so it disappeared and to the best of my knowledge, no one has raised the point since.

You have a lot of 60 feet to change course, and you are looking right there. Can our softball kids take a turn when you tell them or is everyone on auto pilot and god forbid don't mess with their path? Wow.

That just isn't true. In most cases, they have mere seconds since F3 has no idea where the throw is going until it is released.

 

[Umpire]

Sounds like I am not the only told to tell kids to use the other bag, so if you have an issue with that you umps or should I say grumps need to get together about it. Not my area.

Is that English?

 

[BretMan]

You know I could not care less and I would be fine with one bag. However, the kid running has seconds to decide to take a turn. So if they can do that they can use the other bag. Personally I am not running into anyone in slowpitch so I go around.

Sounds like I am not the only told to tell kids to use the other bag, so if you have an issue with that you umps or should I say grumps need to get together about it. Not my area.

What, you've never seen a close bang-bang play at first base before, where the ball and the runner get there at about the same time?

Bang-bang play at first + fielder being pulled to colored base by errant throw at last split-second = runner not having time to change course.

I don't have an issue with a runner switching over to the white base when they're allowed to.

I don't have an issue with a runner continuing to the colored base when they're allowed to.

I don't have an issue with a coach coaching his players to switch when they're allowed to.

I do have an issue with an umpire suggesting that players do something that the rules don't require them to do.