[Dave Reed]

It is commonly believed that under OBR a B/R is not "forced" at first, and one can plausibly infer this because rule 4.09 (a) and (b) make a clear distinction between force outs and the out made by B/R at 1st base. In this thread, Atl Blue quotes JEA referring to the B/R being "forced out." As it happens, OBR also makes such a reference. See Definitions, Double Play (b):
"A reverse force double play is one in which the first out is a force play and the second out is made on a runner for whom the force is removed by reason of the first out. Examples of reverse force plays: runner on first, one out; batter grounds to first baseman, who steps on first base (one out) and throws to second baseman or shortstop for the second out (a tag play). Another example..."[snip]

So this OBR example of a reverse force double play-- which requires the first out to be a "force play"-- has the first out being made by B/R before he reaches 1st base. If Jim Evans was being "sloppy", so were the writers of the OBR.

Rich Fronheiser suggests that the Definition of Force Play, in conjunction with 4.09, shows that B/R is not forced at first. My own opinion is that the definition can be read to include the B/R at first base provided that we believe the batter can "occupy" home base. The term "occupy" isn't defined in OBR, and I choose to believe that the batter does occupy home base while he is at bat. And so it is "technically correct" to refer to a force play on B/R at first. (You've got to admit it would make discussions with coaches, players, and spectators easier if it didn't seem necessary to say " well, technically it isn't a force at first, but...")

Dave