[greymule]

Never thought of that one. Since the runner from 1B had rounded 2B, his third out would not be a force and would remove the force on the runner from 2B. Unless the defense could nail the BR before he got to 1B, the run, having crossed the plate before the out, would score.

Quick thinking by the runner from 1B to put himself out by passing the runner.

Maybe somebody knows of a rule that permits the defense still to get a force out on the runner from 2B. For example, if BR had hit safely, and the runner from 2B missed 3B, and then the defense got a non-force third out on a following runner, they could still appeal the miss at 3B for a force (fourth) out.

But there's something not right about allowing the offense to commit an infraction that prevents the defense from accomplishing what it would have otherwise. A defender tagging a runner and thereby removing a force on a preceding runner is one thing. Permitting the offense to commit an infraction to its own advantage is something else. What if the passing of the runner was obviously intentional to create a non-force third out?

[Edited by greymule on Jan 3rd, 2004 at 05:00 PM]