Quote:
Originally posted by cbfoulds
(snip) However, I stand by by comment that I have NEVER heard or read a LOGICAL argument for "BR forced @ 1st" as it applies to anything other than whether BR is out is the base is tagged before BR gets there. (snip)
--Carter
[Edited by cbfoulds on Aug 9th, 2004 at 12:44 AM]
|
Well, I intended to stay out of this, but cbfoulds has managed to draw me in. The point of this post is to demonstrate that one need not be illogical or idiotic to believe that there is a force play on the batter-runner at first base. I don't claim compelling arguments to show that there is a force play-- there are good logical arguments against the notion, but I will attempt to show that some of the arguments presented in this thread against a force play are either incorrect or are weak.
Probably the best argument for a force play at first (FPAF) is that the OBR says it is a force play in plain, unmistakeable words. See 2.00 Definitions, Double play (b), 1st example. Or see my post on page 3 of the recent thread Force Play? which was last posted to on July 26. Now why should we accept this example in preference to the interpretation many posters here give to the definition of a Force Play? 'Cause the main reason examples are provided in rulebooks, textbooks, IRS publications, etc. is that they allow us to compare our underï½tanding of a rule or definition as it applies to a specific situation with the ruling that was actually intended by the author(s), When our understanding or interpretation of the definition differs from the outcome provided in an example, then we should be suspicious of our understanding, since it is much easier for an author to proof and verify a specific example than to verify a rule or definition against every possible situation. Our suspicion should increase if the rule or definition in question is poorly drawn, vague, or in conflict with other rules/definitons. And of the definitions in the OBR, that of a Force Play is among the more poorly drawn. The comment following the definition is 10 times longer than the definition itself, is the longest comment attached to any definition, and it begins with the words "Confusion regarding this play." I won't go into the several specific deficiencies of the definition; the point is that this definition is a poor foundation from which to draw logical conclusions.
Consider also that the rulebook nowhere says that there isn't a FPAF, and the addition of the the words "other than the batter-runner" to the definition would have sufficedãto lay the entire matter to rest. Yet the rule book does find the space to point out the obvious fact that a runner returning to retouch following a catch is "not a force play" (4.09 last cmt)
Now on to pooh-poohing some of the arguments advanced in this thread against FPAF.
'there are specific rules which determine when BR is or is not out at 1st base [6.05(j), 6.09(b)cmt, 7.08(a)(2), 7.08(c), 7.08(j), 7.10(c), for instance.]ã Please note that none of these rules as they apply to the BR/1st play refers to it as a "force play". '
True, but the argument loses its vitality by the counter example:
6.05 A runner is out when (l) An infielderãintentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and third base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases.
Here the author has gone to the trouble of enumerating all possible configurations which would lead to a baserunner being involved in a force play, when he could have more economically written" ...drive resulting in a force play at any base before two..." Of course it could be that the author, fully understanding that there is a force play at first, couldn't use the economical form without changing the meaning. Just kidding! Actually, from what I can see, the OBR usually enumerates. See for example the definition of an infield fly.
BTW, 7.02 [7.01 actually] may help you understand why the play @ 1st is not a force per 2.00. Hint: does the Batter have the right to stay @ Home Plate "until forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base"?
7.01 refers to a runner who acquires the right to a base. In my opinion, the batter has the right to home, and loses the right when he becomes a runner because his time at bat has ended. The batter-runner (who is always a runner) has no opportunity to acquire home. As an aside, a scoring runner does not acquire home either-- he ceases to be a runner.
Also, see 7.08(i)cmt [hint: if BR "retreats" to the plate and stands thereon, can he be put out by tagging him?].
7.08(i) cmt is simply not relevant. It is a clarification of the "travesty" rule, showing that not every instance of running the bases in reverse is a travesty. If you doubt the limited scope, consider R1 and B/R singles. Can R1 return to 1st and be protected from being put out? Not while B/R is occupying first -- in contradiction to the cmt. Also, there is no legitimate reason for any runner to attempt to return to home, so he can't be decoyed there. ãAny attempt by a runner to return to home (after reaching first)
is a travesty.
Carter, you may feel this post is directed against you, but it really isn't. In fact, I appreciate that you took the trouble to write out the case against FPAP. In many instances, I used your words, but I believe that they are mostly representative of the opinions of the other posters here whose opinions and writing skill I respect.
Dave