Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
There will never be an advantage to the offense if the offense misses a base on a force play. Think about it!
The only potential advantage that could be gained would be on a timing play where a few precious moments gained in sliding around a base could allow a run to score.
|
Bfair, that would only be true under FED rules. Most of this discussion thread, despite its header, has revolved around an official OBR interpretation on eTeamz.
You say there will "never be an advantage". If you were talking OBR then you would have proceeded to describe
exactly how that advantage arises in this case. (grin) We weren't talking about a GREAT BIG miss that could be appealed later for the force out. We were talking about a
tiny little miss where the runner remains in the vicinity of the base, trys to get back, and so really hasn't "missed" the base at all for appeal purposes. No OBR 4th out appeal! That was the crux of the whole thread at eTeamz that started this debate.
Carl's facetious argument that even
he could score before the tag out anyway was a red herring, at least where the force play vs time play issue is concerned, and Carl knows it! And NO, I'm not defending the quirky setup that Pete Booth has put forward. I'm simply recognising the reality of a bee sting-sized possibility that the offense could derive a benefit from Bremigan's OBR force play ruling.
If Bremigan's OBR ruling didn't exist, and the force is NOT removed by the runner sliding by without touching the base, then NO RUNS CAN EVER SCORE on that play. That is because when R1 is later tagged out it's
still a force play. With Bremigan's OBR ruling, however, Carl's assertion is correct. It doesn't then matter whether R1 actually misses the bag or not. The force is still removed when he passes the base before being put out. It's just that being able to do that without touching the base offends Pete Booth's sense of justice in amateur OBR play. He just isn't prepared to forgive the Pro's for their patently professional interpretation. OTOH, his original FED scenario in this thread becomes a non-issue under OBR, as there would only be 2 outs on that play. A better OBR example is as follows:
With R1 and R3, 2 outs, and assuming the BR is safe at 1st, in OBR IF the offensive R1 beats the ball to 2nd but slides around 2nd base without actually touching it, whether deliberately (screwball possibility) or otherwise, by the Bremigan ruling R1 has thus
converted his own obvious 3rd out from a Force play (no run scores on the entire play) into a Time play (runs score before the tag). If R1 actually touches 2nd then the force is legitimately removed anyway, Bremigan ruling or not.
THAT small, almost miniscule window of opportunity favours the offense because the offense managed to remove the force without even having to touch 2nd base on the slide-by after beating the ball. Of course it doesn't help them if they miss the base entirely, and then proceed on to the next base. That simply opens up the 4th out appeal. That's why this play is so obscure. The runner has to stay at that base to prevent the 4th out appeal from being an issue.
I hope I've explained that clearly and succinctly. It apparently took 12 pages of argument at eTeamz, and that was without the complication of a FED alternative. If it weren't for the important principles involved, I'm sure I wouldn't have wasted that much time on this issue. The offensive advantage is so small that I will NEVER bother with it again. Oops...
As I told Carl, Bfair, never say "NEVER" (grin).
Cheers,
Warren Willson
[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 7th, 2000 at 06:12 AM]