Double First Base Plays

[johnnyg08]

Here's one from this weekend
 

 

[Velho]

Thank for posting that, as well as the feint one.

Do you think the feint one was secretly a double pass rule call?

[BLWizzRanger]

Did they get the placement of R1 wrong?  On an interference, which should have been called since the BR touched the wrong, white, base, R1 probably had already acquired 2nd base when the interference occurred.  Shouldn't the R1 be placed back at 2nd base?

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

Did they get the placement of R1 wrong?  On an interference, which should have been called since the BR touched the wrong, white, base, R1 probably had already acquired 2nd base when the interference occurred.  Shouldn't the R1 be placed back at 2nd base?

 

I don't call NCAA, so I am fuzzy . . . but it appears they went with the "out on appeal" rather than the interference.  If they had gone with the interference, that would have brought R1 back to first, wouldn't it?

[dumbdumb]

if 2 things simultaneously happen at the exact same time caused by the exact same runner - missing a said base and interference at same said base - which violation takes precedence. does coach get to choose which violation he wants checked, missed base or interference at said base and umpires have to go with what he asks first without coaching him. much like batters interference and the coaches option on the penalty phase. also kind of like a tie goes to runner on bang bang play at first where they say runner and ball arrive at exact same time, although in horse racing there are so few of those it is almost negligible that a tie ever happens at all. one or the other happens, not both at the same time.

p.s.---play by play says a batter singles. next batter up is out at first on interference, runner goes to third. can runner on first advance to third when the batter runner is out for inference at first base in ncaa?, as TMIB asked in previous post? PU is former AA MiLB.

[BLWizzRanger]

4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I don't call NCAA, so I am fuzzy . . . but it appears they went with the "out on appeal" rather than the interference.  If they had gone with the interference, that would have brought R1 back to first, wouldn't it?

It wasn't an appeal since it would have to be a live ball appeal.  But we don't know if the umpires got together to get the call right or if the coach came out asking for help. That shouldn't matter though, right?   If I heard correctly, when the runner touches the white base when he is only allowed to touch the alternate base, with or without contact, it is interference. And if interference, the runners return to base last acquired.  

[dumbdumb]

3 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

It wasn't an appeal since it would have to be a live ball appeal.  But we don't know if the umpires got together to get the call right or if the coach came out asking for help. That shouldn't matter though, right?   If I heard correctly, when the runner touches the white base when he is only allowed to touch the alternate base, with or without contact, it is interference. And if interference, the runners return to base last acquired.  

r u saying in this case, which was a runner at first, should go back to first or second base.

couldn't timing of the runner on first getting to second ahead of the BR, if that is your answer be like, slow runner on first on a hit and run for whatever reason that would happen, and a slow batter hits single to right field and the right fielder comes up quickly and throws to third, but ball goes OOB, and BR was not to first yet, but you gave him third for some reason due to the OOB, or faster batter had touched first, and you only gave him second, both situations being from the time of throw.

 

 

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

14 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

It wasn't an appeal since it would have to be a live ball appeal.  But we don't know if the umpires got together to get the call right or if the coach came out asking for help. That shouldn't matter though, right?   If I heard correctly, when the runner touches the white base when he is only allowed to touch the alternate base, with or without contact, it is interference. And if interference, the runners return to base last acquired.  

 

I cannot say that it was a live ball appeal, but I see what could have been a live ball appeal when F3 is pointing at the bag.  Touching only the white is not interference, it is a missed base (other factors pending).

 

Before I throw this in here, I am convinced they got something wrong . . . I'm just not sure what it was . . . 

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/baseball/rules/PRMBA_RulesInterpretations-DoubleBaseatFirstBase.pdf

 

So . . . can they NOT advance on an interference play (back to first) or is the last base acquired (back to second)?  If he was not stealing on the pitch and on second by the time the ball was batted (the batted ball was the play that allowed him to advance), I am on the "back to first" side of that argument.   

[BLWizzRanger]

I need to go back through all of the NCAA videos to see if I can find it, maybe I am hallucinating.  My understanding was that if on a play in the infield, if the BR touches only the white portion of the base and makes contact with the fielder, if is interference.  If contact was made between the fielder and the BR when the BR touches the colored base, it is obstruction.  Otherwise, the standard rules apply to the use of a double bag.

BTW, I don't think they called running lane interference because the throw made the F3 elevate to try and catch it.  BR did not affect the catch in that sense. 

Also, the fielder came down with the ball and touched the bag when the BR was on the bag... meaning, no appeal was necessary.  If the BR was two steps past the bag, then the appeal was needed.  So maybe the umpire conference overturned it over that fact - no interference - and the R1 got third because he acquired it legally.

 

[The Man in Blue]

Elevation is not enough to absolve the runner of needing to hit the runner's bag.  It certainly is not enough to absolve him of never having been legal.  The fielder needs to be drawn into foul territory to allow the runner to go to the fair side.  Perhaps the umpire thought it did from his angle?

Coming down on the bag is not an appeal; an appeal would still be necessary.  If this is the case, the error the umpire made was the safe call.  If it was an appeal, I'm thinking he didn't see the touch (watching the tag?) and it required a get-together to decide what to get for Bobby and Millie's wedding. 

I'm not sure we will get to the bottom of this one because there are too many variables in play. 

[SH0102]

FYI, umpires consulted and changed the call on their own, no replays, no appeals.  R1 was originally put back at second and then they consulted again and sent back to third.

If you have espn+ you can watch this , Villanova v FIU from sunday

[BLWizzRanger]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Elevation is not enough to absolve the runner of needing to hit the runner's bag.  It certainly is not enough to absolve him of never having been legal.  The fielder needs to be drawn into foul territory to allow the runner to go to the fair side.  Perhaps the umpire thought it did from his angle?

Coming down on the bag is not an appeal; an appeal would still be necessary.  If this is the case, the error the umpire made was the safe call.  If it was an appeal, I'm thinking he didn't see the touch (watching the tag?) and it required a get-together to decide what to get for Bobby and Millie's wedding. 

I'm not sure we will get to the bottom of this one because there are too many variables in play. 

Yeah, I was speaking to two different instances of possible interference.  One being the (my hallucinations??) contact on the bag due to him touching the bag's white side and the other being the possible running lane interference since he was running in fair territory. 

It is a distinct ruling from NCAA presentations and videos that an appeal is not needed if the BR is on the bag while the fielder is touching the bag with the ball and an appeal is needed if the runner beat the throw and is two steps past the bag.  The appeal must be done before the BR returns to the bag.  

And I agree that the F3's actions were not an appeal in any way shape or form.  

More and more I am thinking the 1U was just a little rusty in not getting the original call correct - BR out for touching the white bag on a play in the infield and no appeal was needed.  R1 to third.

38 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

FYI, umpires consulted and changed the call on their own, no replays, no appeals.  R1 was originally put back at second and then they consulted again and sent back to third.

If you have espn+ you can watch this , Villanova v FIU from sunday

The OP shows the video of all of that.

[SH0102]

On 2/16/2026 at 2:47 AM, BLWizzRanger said:

But we don't know if the umpires got together to get the call right or if the coach came out asking for help

 

15 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

The OP shows the video of all of that

I responded to this

[BLWizzRanger]

@The Man in Blue FOUND IT!!!! Its in NHFS.

8.2-2a   .....It is interference when the batter-runner, on a force play (sic), touches only the white portion of the base and collides with the fielder in the process of catching a thrown ball while on the white portion of the base. Obstruction is called on the defense when there is a force play (sic) on the batter runner, who touches only the colored portion of the base and collides with the fielder about to catch a thrown ball while touching the colored portion of the base.

Wanna bet I will sleep better tonight?

[johnnyg08]

47 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

@The Man in Blue FOUND IT!!!! Its in NHFS.

8.2-2a   .....It is interference when the batter-runner, on a force play (sic), touches only the white portion of the base and collides with the fielder in the process of catching a thrown ball while on the white portion of the base. Obstruction is called on the defense when there is a force play (sic) on the batter runner, who touches only the colored portion of the base and collides with the fielder about to catch a thrown ball while touching the colored portion of the base.

Wanna bet I will sleep better tonight?

Sweet dreams