[cbfoulds]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Reed

Originally posted by cbfoulds
You are right, it is possible to read 2.00 "Double play" in a way that supports the notion that FPAF is a "force".

Well, not just possible. Actually there is no other way to read it. Either the PAF is a force or the definition of a reverse DP is in error. (The example could also be wrong, but I assume we agree that the example itself is OK.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The DEFINITION of a "reverse force double play" is OK [actually, a little weird, since I can't find any other use of the term which would require that it be defined]: it is the example that is "wrong" [in implying that PAF=F], for the reason I've outlined: PAF not force 'cause doesn't fit 2.00 "Force Play", and BR out @ 1B by 6.05(j), not by 7.08(e). The example is "ok" only insofar as everybody is out as described. Never assume.

I have not previously dumped on that notion, although it clearly is one of the 406 [made-up #] "known errors" in the ORB.
Ah ha! We have a controversy! Some time ago, Rich Fronheiser said there are 456 "known erors." I can only hope that he spelled it "erors" on purpose.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I like to think he did. I did not have Rich's # handy when I wrote: he is a General Authority, so I will confess I was mistaken; it's 456 "known erors".

Why is it an error? Because there is a separate, specific rule that makes BR out at 1st if the base is tagged; thus the PAF does not have to be a FPAF for the example of a "reverse DP" [which is one of the WORST pieces of writing in the whole ORB] in the defn. of DP to be correct.
The example is correct whether a PAF is a force or not. This line of reasoning reduces to "it isn't a force because its not." We would need some other reason to conclude there isn't a force and that therefore the definition is in error.

>>>>>>>>>>>
Nah: "it's not a force 'cause (A) the defn. of "Force play" says it's not; and (B) if it was a "force" there would be no need for 6.05(j)~ 7.08(e) would take care of it." Plus remember that 2.00 "Double play " is not purporting to define or modify the defn of Force play- it uses the PAF to exemplify "reverse force double play", no-one knows why - the "rule" in this section [the definition] can be/ is correct, even though the "example" is FUBAR. Have I mentioned that this section is one of the WORST pieces of writing in the Book?

I tend to suspect that 7.03/7.08(i)cmt together create one of the 406 "known errors", and even if not, nobody is likely to argue w/ you if you call the idiot "forced" runner out when he is tagged while jostling his BRunning brother for space at 1st after retreating from 2nd.
I assumed that you had followed the thread revolving around 3 runners standing on third base. In that thread, and in a similar thread at umpire.org, "everybody" agreed that a trailing forced runner is safe from put out. So I didn't bother to explain 7.03 is a known error. Let me also point out that 7.03 conflicts pretty strongly with 7.01.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I followed the thread here; don't recall that I weighed in. If I had, my input would have been similar to the following:
I have 3 runners on one base; two of 'em are gonna be out if tagged. If we take [going CtrClockwise] R3, R2, R1 at TOP; now R3A, B, & C, respectively: B is the only one who is where he is supposed to be [having been forced off 2d]. However, by rule [7.03 - and yes, that is a conflict w/ 7.01: another "known eror"], R3A is the one entitled to the base; so if the defense tags C [he's a dead duck, regardless] and B, technically B is out. However, A is one of the dummies who made the mess, so if the defense tags all 3 [which I'm expecting they will], I'm calling A & C out - that's who everyone EXPECTS to be out, and I really don't care, as long as 2 go back to the dugout. In fact, if the offensive coach wants to argue about which runners are toast, I'll tell him "you pick 'em: take 2 with you".

The point of my "hints", recall, was to direct attention to the circumstances which demonstrate that the BR to 1st play CANNOT meet the definition of a "Force play". Recall that I acknowledge that it is customary, and even useful, at times to regard this as a "force" {and as we have seen, the defn. of "Double play" is one such instance enshrined in the rule book}, and most of the time, it makes no difference if you get this "wrong": force or no, BR is STILL out - if not by "force", then by specific rule that has the same result as the play being a "force".
Recall further, however, that there are circumstances where the issue of "is it [ACTUALLY] a force" makes a difference, namely: if BR touches 1stB safely, but then retreats and is tagged off base do runs score; and must BR be tagged in this sitch, or will tagging 1stB do the job ? We've brought greymule around on this one, I hope we've got you, also.
Let me make clear immediately that I think the BR must be tagged in this situation. Of course this means that runs do score.
I do differ from the opinion of many in the following respect: I think BR must be tagged even if an edict were issued declaring the POF is a force. My reasoning is that there is no baseball reason for any runner who has safely reached base to return to home. Furthermore, I interpret the word "retreat" in 7.08(e) to mean attempting to return to a safe haven. So the BR might decide to return to home (probably because he thinks he hit a foul ball) but he isn't retreating, and 7.08(e) doesn't apply. Similarily, if R1 is forced to and reaches 2nd, but then falls off the bag toward 1st, I don't think the force is reinstated: there was no intent to reach a safe haven.

By the way, it is interesting to consider why baseball reinstates the force. I speculate that a reason is to avoid a firedrill which could arise on a high flyball. Play: R1 and batter hits a dome scraper to left on a hit and run play. R1 probably has time to touch 2nd, and then return to half way point between 1st and 2nd. Absent the reinstated force rule, if the fly falls, R1 gains an advantage at second by this manuever since he would have to be tagged. The rule reduces the probability of controversy-- did R1 really reach and touch 2nd?

Dave

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As long as I have you agreeing that BR has to be tagged if he touches 1B and then "retreats" [OK, "inexplicably moseys"] back toward Home; and agreeing that there is no "reinstated Force", so runs score; then I no longer need to argue with you - us lawyers are comfortable with the idea of "right for the wrong reason" - and we would get along fine on the field in deciding how to rule on one of these screwy sitchs.

My only concern is that, by adhereing to the FPAF heresy, you give aid and comfort to those who want to "reinstate" the [IMO] non-existent "force" on the PAF, resulting in an out if the base is tagged, instead of the runner, and runs don't score if this is 3rd out.

Unfortunately, I have to occasionally deal w/ hardhead idiot partners who have been known to respond to being shown that they made the wrong call thru a black-and-white citation to the rule book with the words: "the Book is wrong." [not one of the 456 "erors"; the book plainly says black, HHIP rules white] Makes me cranky, sometimes, about rules & interpretations. Good news for me is, however junior I may be on this Board, I am way senior to the known HHI's in my assn.

I long ago gave up trying to figure out WHY the various Rules Committees wrote what, and the way, they did/ do. Makes my head hurt.

--Carter

[Edited by cbfoulds on Aug 12th, 2004 at 09:10 AM]