First baseman rights to outside bag?

[vcackerman]

I have heard from umpires that if the fielder establishes on the safety base the runner, must use the white base - is this the case?

It normally comes up once every few games on a dropped third and being a former catcher, I always encourage my first baseman to be in foul territory to receive the throw.

 

[quincy]

Change the word from must to may and they are correct.

 

[MTR]

The RULE does NOT encourage defenders to cross the path or a runner. It is idiotic to think that an "allowance" within a rule would encourage poor throws, which mind you would take longer to catch. The rule DOES encourage a defender, who was gone into foul ground, not to re-cross the path of the runner. Clearly, you are not visualizing these sorts of plays correctly.

Try reading what was written. Who said anything about encouraging poor throws. And not only am I visualizing them, but have discussed this with some of the umpires that were instrumental in the original interpretation in ISF which transitioned to ASA since these umpires held the office level for both organizations at the time.

Those interps made it clear that the defender had to be pulled away from the base in foul territory to use it. Point was you did not want the defender to just go up and come down or stretch into the runners path, so there was no reward (out by using colored portion of the base). It was meant to have the defender either commit to coming off the bag to catch the ball prior to it reaching the running lane or to have the defender chase the throw to foul territory and then be allowed to come back to the base.

The new regime wouldn't commit to anything the first couple of years and outright opposed attempted rule changes to accommodate a clear cut interpretation. Even an attempt to define an errant throw was rejected, which made it even less clearer to the umpires and coaches what was to be considered an errant throw.

As it is now, the defender has no incentive to not attempt to catch the ball wherever it is since they can now simply sidle over to the colored portion and still get the out. And as much as I would like to see an OBS when a BR hesitates because of the defender moving in their path, many will not and will apply the old school mentality, "well, that's just part of the game" thoughts.

Then again, if coaches would teach skilled players how to properly play to position, there wouldn't be a double-base and all this silliness wouldn't be necessary.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

The new regime wouldn't commit to anything the first couple of years and outright opposed attempted rule changes to accommodate a clear cut interpretation. Even an attempt to define an errant throw was rejected, which made it even less clearer to the umpires and coaches what was to be considered an errant throw.

It's nice to hear attempts were made to clarify the rule by amending it, but evidently it was too late. The old regime should have done it instead of just relying on an external clarification/interpretation that left the rule open to reinterpretation. Live by the interpretation, die by the reinterpretation.

As it is now, the defender has no incentive to not attempt to catch the ball wherever it is since they can now simply sidle over to the colored portion and still get the out. And as much as I would like to see an OBS when a BR hesitates because of the defender moving in their path, many will not and will apply the old school mentality, "well, that's just part of the game" thoughts.

LOL Seeing you complain about others applying old-school mentality is TFF. Thanks!

 

[MTR]

It's nice to hear attempts were made to clarify the rule by amending it, but evidently it was too late. The old regime should have done it instead of just relying on an external clarification/interpretation that left the rule open to reinterpretation. Live by the interpretation, die by the reinterpretation.

It was attempted, but umpires have a maximum of 15 votes on a general council that at the time had more the 300 voting members.

LOL Seeing you complain about others applying old-school mentality is TFF. Thanks!

If you say so.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

It was attempted, but umpires have a maximum of 15 votes on a general council that at the time had more the 300 voting members.

That might be somewhat relevant if it got to a general vote. Did it? Regardless, the real issue is passing it when the regime favors it instead of relying on an interpretation to hold up. It should have been relatively easy to get an editorial amendment passed with the old regime backing it.

 

[MTR]

That might be somewhat relevant if it got to a general vote. Did it? Regardless, the real issue is passing it when the regime favors it instead of relying on an interpretation to hold up. It should have been relatively easy to get an editorial amendment passed with the old regime backing it.

No, killed at the committee level and the battle wasn't worth fighting on the floor of the general council.

Part of the argument is (present regime) that if the defender has to move to or over foul territory with any part of the body, the play is coming from foul territory.

I would rather the base just go away, it isn't necessary. If it is for someone's teams, they shouldn't be playing championship level ball, JMHO. I now HS coaches who refuse to place the double base on their field as they consider it an insult to the coaches and players and it certainly doesn't help the players, offense or defense, when attempting to move to the next level. I cannot argue with them, but makes you wonder why it seems to be important to the level of ball that IS the real preparation of the player moving to the next level.

Do not be surprised if in the next five years or so you don't see a push to add a double base on 3rd for the safety of the runner to keep them out of fair territory. There has already been places in SP which do this.