[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
Nice try!
Problem w/ your explanation is that it is a variation [more intelligent, perhaps, but definitely out of the same stable] on "IT JUST IS" ["is NOT", in this case]. Can you cite me to any rule, OFF.INTERP., A/O, or Higher/ General Authority which supports the notion that "retreats", as and when used in 7.08(e), doesn't include BR's inexplicable retrograde movement on the base path after touching 1st? I didn't think so. That makes it your opinion: everyone has 'em, just like ...(well, you know..); however, it is a bit of a stretch to claim that you have made a logical, reasoned argument that X is true, since, in your opinion, Y is true. What is your authority [as us legals like to say] for your opinion or assertion?

The word "retreat" is used just once in the OBR. On the other hand, by my count, the word "return" is used 25 times in the sense of a runner going back towards a base. That's for live ball situations. It is used another 13 times in dead ball situations. The disparity in frequency of use compels the inference that the author(s) used the word "retreat" in some sense other than as a synonym for "return." Our best shot at understanding his meaning is recourse to a kind of higher authority-- the dictionary. My American Heritage Collegiate defines the intransitive form of the verb retreat as "1. to fall back or withdraw in the face of danger or an enemy attack." So in order to retreat, as oppposed to simply returning, the base runner needs to believe that his already attained base does not offer him protection against an out.
I don't know (perhaps through ignorance and lack of resource) of any comment by a baseball higher authority regarding the reinstatement of a force play. Do you?

How about 4.09(a)(2)? No runs score w/ 3d out on "ANY runner being forced out"[My emphasis]. Please notice also (a)(1): No runs ...3d out "by the BR before he touches 1st base". Now, I'll let you get away with claiming that 6.05 repeating parts of 7.08 [actually, it is chronologically vice versa, which I think is significant] may be merely redundant; but even the Rule Book guys wouldn't bother to separately enumerate the PAF in the SAME PARAGRAPH as a force play, if the PAF was a "Force Play".

The Rules Guys would and did because not all outs at 1st are force outs, even assuming FPAF. With 2 out and R3, fly ball to the outfield, R3 will easily cross the plate before BR is put out. Even under the assumption of FPAF, the out is not a force out. So the Rules Guys needed 4.09(a)(1) as well as (2.) In case you'd like to argue that a caught fly ball is a force out under the assumption of FPAF, note that it would likely be a contentious point (many will claim that a tag out or touched base are the only way to make a force out-- I would add out of baseline to avoid a tag) and so the Rules Guys would put in (1) just for "avoidance of doubt," as some of your legal brethren put it.

By the way, I forgot to point out in an earlier post that Section 10 Official Scorekeeper uses the definitions of Double Play and the Force/Reverse Force variants, primarily to keep track of RBIs. The definitions are needed and deny RBIs when BR causes a Force or Reverse Force DP.
It isn't important to this discussion, but I am genuinely puzzled: Why do you think those definitions are the among the "worst" writing in OBR? I think they are clear, concise, and free of jargon.

I continue to stand by my statement that I have yet to encounter a logical argument for PAF=F, although I certainly concede to you a reasonable defense of the closest thing to a logical argument that there is [the "reverse force DP" example] for the FPAF proposition. Under our agreed-upon rules of engagement, that means I am not allowed to call you names: I trust you will agree that I have obeyed that rule.

Well, apparently we disagree on the meaning of "logical." But we're both doing fine regarding name-calling.

Dave