First baseman rights to outside bag?

[shockcoach]

It be so much easier if we taught our 1st basemen and runners how to use the bag and abandon the use of safety bags.

 

[Umpire]

A few things:

1. The double base is there because of poor running and poor coaching. The game of softball can only blame its instructors and participants for the creation of the double base. Baseball played for more than a century and a quarter without the base.

2. Coaches don't bother to read the rule even with the double base, so they don't train their players corrected even now.

3. There are no force plays at 1st base, despite the erroneous statement in the rule book about a throw from the foul side of 1st base.

4. When answering these types of questions, it doesn't do any good to bring up other types of situations regarding the double base. It's like ordering a roast beef sandwich and the lady behind the deli counter says, "We have a great turkey breast." Who the hell cares?

5. In the play that was actually asked about, the defender at 1st base may only use the colored portion of the base if an errant throw pulled the defender to that base or pulled the defender off completely, which would allow the defender to return to the colored based.

6. For those who don't like #5, the logic behind it is that they don't want the defender to recross the path of the runner. That's the entire purpose of having the second base. Yes, it gives the defense an extra 15 inches, which inherently is unfair. However, the rules committee believed that doing so was a better option than having the defender cross back from foul territory to get to the white base at the same time the batter-runner comes barreling into the base.

 

[chinamigarden]

K

A few things:

1. The double base is there because of poor running and poor coaching. The game of softball can only blame its instructors and participants for the creation of the double base. Baseball played for more than a century and a quarter without the base.

2. Coaches don't bother to read the rule even with the double base, so they don't train their players corrected even now.

3. There are no force plays at 1st base, despite the erroneous statement in the rule book about a throw from the foul side of 1st base.

4. When answering these types of questions, it doesn't do any good to bring up other types of situations regarding the double base. It's like ordering a roast beef sandwich and the lady behind the deli counter says, "We have a great turkey breast." Who the hell cares?

5. In the play that was actually asked about, the defender at 1st base may only use the colored portion of the base if an errant throw pulled the defender to that base or pulled the defender off completely, which would allow the defender to return to the colored based.

6. For those who don't like #5, the logic behind it is that they don't want the defender to recross the path of the runner. That's the entire purpose of having the second base. Yes, it gives the defense an extra 15 inches, which inherently is unfair. However, the rules committee believed that doing so was a better option than having the defender cross back from foul territory to get to the white base at the same time the batter-runner comes barreling into the base.

As a word of caution. When you order roast beef at a deli and the lady behind the company counter says. We have great roast turkey. Strongly consider the turkey. Because she can't shout out our roast beef is terrible and is a couple of hours from turning green. But she can say. We have great turkey.

 

[Umpire]

K
As a word of caution. When you order roast beef at a deli and the lady behind the company counter says. We have great roast turkey. Strongly consider the turkey. Because she can't shout out our roast beef is terrible and is a couple of hours from turning green. But she can say. We have great turkey.

So if you don't know the answer, give a non-responsive answer? Makes sense.

 

[BretMan]

In the situation I witnessed this weekend, the ball was fielded deep in the hole by the 2nd baseman and the 1st baseman recieved the throw with her foot on the outside (orange) bag. Runner was called out and nothing was disputed but it brought up the question about whether the runner should have been safe since the 1st baseman was on the wrong bag.

Was her foot entirely on the colored base? Was there absolutely no contact at all with the white base?

It's a fairly common misconception that if part of the fielder's foot is on the colored base, she's somehow done something wrong and is "using the wrong base". For example, picture a fielder receiving the throw with her foot right in the middle of the two bases, with half her foot on the white base and half on the colored one. That's not illegal. As long as some part of the foot is touching the white base, this would be a valid put out.

If the fielder had her foot mostly on the colored base, with just a tiny tip of a toe touching the white, it might look like she's using the wrong base. But the runner would still be out.

 

[MTR]

You shouldn't reward the defense for a bad throw.

Just my opinion.

I couldn't agree more and have lost that argument every year since Merle Butler and staff retired.

 

[MTR]

5. In the play that was actually asked about, the defender at 1st base may only use the colored portion of the base if an errant throw pulled the defender to that base or pulled the defender off completely, which would allow the defender to return to the colored based.

Of if the play is coming from foul territory on the right side of the field. And AFA ASA's errant throw exemption is a pitiful interpretation since they refuse to define exactly what constitutes an "errant throw" and it actually encourages the defense to cross and possibly remain in the path of the runner since they know they can make the out using the colored portion of the base.

 

[Umpire]

Of if the play is coming from foul territory on the right side of the field. And AFA ASA's errant throw exemption is a pitiful interpretation since they refuse to define exactly what constitutes an "errant throw" and it actually encourages the defense to cross and possibly remain in the path of the runner since they know they can make the out using the colored portion of the base.

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.

 

[ScottyDont]

So if you don't know the answer, give a non-responsive answer? Makes sense.

You seem like a really fun guy.

 

[GunnerShotgun]

You seem like a really fun guy.

He is an Umpire, it goes without saying.