Quote:
Originally posted by PeteBooth
]Originally posted by greymule
Is the order of the appeals relevant in Fed? That is, if the defense first appeals the runner from 1B for failing to reach 2B, does his being called out remove the force on the runner from 2B going to 3B?
The order does matter check out Case Play 9-1-1k
With no outs and the bases loaded, B1 grounds into a 6-4-3 DP as r3/r2 score. R2 misses third base and is declared out upon appeal for the third out.
Ruling: R2's out is not a force out for the third out, therefore, r3's run counts.
I remember reading (or at least I think I do) that in NCAA, the Force remains in effect throughout the entire play, so in NCAA r3's run would not count since at the beginning of the play R2 was forced to go to third.
Perhaps Papa C or Bob Jenkins can confirm.
Pete Booth
|
Pete, I'd agree with you that in Fed the order does matter, but I'd offer a different reason than that exampled by your referenced caseplay. However, your caseplay supports my reason.
Fed 2-29-3 supplies some basics regarding removal of a force.
First, when any specific runner is forced, if a
following runner is putout at a
previous base (meaning a base which THAT runner was also forced to), then the force condition would be removed from the specific runner. That is what your caseplay shows.
However, 2-29-3 also states that when a player misses a base, the force remains in effect. It does not state, however, that the force could not later be removed in accordance with 2-29-3. Therefore, when appealing baserunning infractions by multiple runners, it is still possible for a following runner to be putout at a previous base through appeal. Thus, the importance of appealing in proper order.
The major question with that interpretation is the definition of a putout.
Fed 2-24-2 reads:
A putout is the act of a fielder in retiring a batter or runner. For putouts credited to the catcher and to other fielders, see 9-5-2. An "out" is one of the three required retirements of players of the team at bat.
I believe that since the defense must appeal, the out would be a result ot their act. That being so in comparison to an umpire declaring a runner out for abandonment---which woudl be a result of the umpire's action resulting from the offensive act. Of course, the Fed wording should be corrected to "act of the defensive team" since a coach can now appeal to obtain an out---and he is not a fielder.
Now, some may take exception to the way I look at this, yet it adds logic to the OBR interpretation regarding the order of appeal. It also stays within the Fed's existing wording regarding force removal, and it is consistent with their published caseplays. That caseplay consistency includes examples of where following runners are retired at a previous base, and where following are retired at a base beyond a "previous" base.
The specific issue, to the best of my knowledge, remains not specifically addressed by Fed caseplay.
Just my opinion,
Freix
[Edited by Bfair on Apr 17th, 2002 at 02:57 PM]