3 heads better than 1?????????

[default]

It happened today in....well lets just say up north. During ITB, 2outs runner at 3rd. girl at the plate smokes a grounder up 1st base line. Ball bounces off heal of 1st basemans glove and goes in foul territory. 1st baseman quickly gets the ball runs to the bag and steps on the orange side. the girl who hit it stopped and started back towards home. (should be out) the runners coach tell her to get to the bag, she does. when she gets there she is called safe, and run is scored. The protest is on... tourney rep is there and ALL 3 (three blue) get together and call her safe because the 1st baseman used the wrong bag. Protest is lost.
ASA rules. book says (8.2.m.4) On any force out attempt from the foul side of 1st base the defense and the runner-batter may use either the white or contrasting color portion of the base.
with book in coaches hand none of the 3 would discuss this. how can this be missed by not 1, or 2, but all 3?

 

[default]

First, an inaccuracy in your post...

When the batter-runner "stopped and started back toward home", she would not be out for doing that. A batter-runner can only be callled out for heading back toward the plate if she does so to avoid a tag. With no tag being attempted (ie: a defensive player actually holding the ball and attempting to touch the batter-runner) there is no rule violation here.

But as far as your main play...this is a classic example of a play where the defensive player may legally use the colored base- provided that the ball and defender were completely off the base and completely in foul ground.

Without this exception to the rule, on this play the fielder would be required to cross over in front of the batter-runner on a collision course to reach the white base. The "safety base" ain't so darn safe when that happens! Thus, the exception to the rule.

I wouldn't even be able to guess what another person was thinking. Some sanctioning bodies other than ASA and NFHS do not have this exception in their rules, and the ASA rule was just changed to allow this a few years ago. Maybe that had something to do with their confusion.

 

[default]

Both the ball and the player were a good 3 feet in foul. the blue said she had to use the white and could only use orange to avoid a collision. and said that the ball was there so much sooner than the runner that there was not going to be contact. mind you that the 1st baseman was running to the bag with her back to the runner. so basically he was saying that a young player not only had to make the play the way she was taught (use orange when in foul)- use like a dropped 3rd strike. but also had to gauge the speed of the runner to "PICK" which bag to use.

 

[default]

BTW- thanks for the clarification on the batter going back towards home.

 

[default]

Both the ball and the player were a good 3 feet in foul. the blue said she had to use the white and could only use orange to avoid a collision. and said that the ball was there so much sooner than the runner that there was not going to be contact.

Sounds like the umpire is applying a personal interpretation that has no basis in the actual rule.

I hate when that happens...

 

[default]

how can all 3 get it wrong? souldn"t home plate run the crew?

 

[default]

If you actually filed an official protest, the final decision should NOT have been in the hands of the umpires in any way, shape or form. When a protest is filed, a third party is supposed to decide the outcome- preferably an Umpire-in-Chief that actually knows the rule.

The three umpires on the field had their chance to get it right the first time. If they did, then you wouldn't of had to file the protest! Having the same three umpires rule on the protest defeats the entire concept and purpose of an official protest.

 

[default]

the whole thing was written down and a 3rd party took it from the dug out. basically what came back to the dugout was an interpretation of what the ump saw, and that is what they went with. i guess that is the way they roll up north.???? feel bad for the girls who fought their butts off.

 

[default]

Unfortunately I can't agree with the comittee thing. First, the 3rd base umpire tried to correct the 1st base ump but she was trumped by him. Second the commitee made the ruling incorrectly stating that the umpire did not feel there was an imminent collision so the 1st base player should have used the white base. Third, 1st base ump didnt see the back track, he just stared at the base until the runner went back towards home, then crossed the base, then returned and then she was called safe. So no one saw the back track, no one called the rule correctly. I asked the commitee, what happens when a dropped third goes far to the 1st base side. Does the 1b not get to catch it on the orange. He just stared at me in silence. I asked him if it was not incumbent on them to
get the play right, he said they did. BUt as stated, the comittee just went on the interpretation of the umpire, not the rule. I did not see the protest, but all of th details were listed. The comittee, at least should have made the correct call. So I guess we should ore appropriately call this post 4 heads are better than 1

 

[default]

Sounds like to me, the umpires didn't see the "danger of a collision" since the runner was no where near the bag or even running to it.

Isn't it so Bretman.. if "danger of collision" is not involved at first base... then the option of the 1st baseman of using the orange or white bag is not there ?

Need to get rid of the orange bag I think and teach girls how to run the bases and teach 1st base people had to play the base in my opinion.

 

[default]

You would think that someone reviewing the protest would have a rule book handy...

The correct rule was already quoted in the first post. If the play is being made from foul ground, the defense may use the colored base. It's right there in black and white and there's nothing in the rule about "an imminent collision".

On this play, the defense's right to use the orange base is absolute. The rule is intended to prevent any possible collision- not just an imminent one- by not requiring the fielder to cross the runner's path to get to the white base.

 

[default]

the collision wasnt the issue. Bretman gave it in some other post: 8.2.M.4 Any play from foul... they just blew it and the committee and ump team knuckled to the guy (big guy too) too bad for the girls, it was ITB and a run scored. Game over

 

[default]

what was sad was, they blew the call (whatever rule you aspire, there were multiple) and teh committee did not diligently work to get it right. shame on all of them, this was an absolutely horrible situation