Force after missing a bag

[SC Ump]

Inspired by another thread on a different board:

R1, R3 and one out. R1 is stealing on the pitch. BR hits a grounder fielded by F5, who throws to 1st retiring the BR. R3 scores and R1 rounds 2nd, missing it by three inches and is safe at 3rd.

The defense successfully appeals that R1 missed second. Is that a force or does the run from R3 score?

[nine01c]

OBR
It is the third out made on a forced runner. No runs score.
R1 stealing on the pitch is irrelevent. See 4.09(a)2
What part of this play confuses people?

[gohogs]

The force on the runner who missed second was removed by the out at first by the batter runner thus if runner on third scored prior to appeal at second then the run counts.
You are correct that the steal has no bearing on the play.

Pig sooie

[nine01c]

OOPS. My bad. Forgot about the out at 1B.
Sorry to misinform. Duh

[greymule]

In Fed and OBR, the key to whether the out at 2B is considered a force in SC Ump's play is that the out at 1B removed the force before R1 missed the bag.

If R1 had missed 2B before the out at 1B (hardly impossible if he got a good jump and BR hit a high chop to F5), then the appeal at 2B would be a force play even though the BR had been put out at 1B.

In NCAA, since R1 was forced at the time the play began, the out at 2B would be considered a force regardless of when the out at 1B occurred. I think that's a strange rule. Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, one out. Charles hits a ground smash to F3, who tags 1B to retire Charles. F3 then throws home in an attempt to get Abel, but Abel slides in safe and knocks the ball away. Baker misses 2B and advances to 3B. The defense appeals at 2B and Baker is called out. Baker was forced when the play began, so the third out is a force and Abel's run doesn't count.

[wpiced]

Excellent question by SC UMP. But, the variable answers tend to be confusing. It seems to me that it doesn't matter if R1 touches or misses 2B, if the ball goes to first and BR is put out, there will never be a force.

Greymule, will you take us through your reasoning using the OBR or Fed rules to justify a forced out at any time in this example? I realize that on a sustained appeal, the out is as if the ball beat R1 to 2B,and if a third out, everything in the game ends -- including R3's attempt to score. But, who decides if that ball theoretically went to 1B or 2B when the appeal is granted, and how could anyone objectively say that a forced out depends on whether the "miss" was before or after the out at 1B. It just seems to me that if BR is put out at 1B, there could never be a forced play anywhere at any time.

Shoot! I'm confused just trying to ask the question!

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by wpiced
Excellent question by SC UMP. But, the variable answers tend to be confusing. It seems to me that it doesn't matter if R1 touches or misses 2B, if the ball goes to first and BR is put out, there will never be a force.

...[snip]...

It just seems to me that if BR is put out at 1B, there could never be a forced play anywhere at any time.

Shoot! I'm confused just trying to ask the question!

I'm not greymule, so I won't try to explain his reasoning, but I think I can help with understanding the rules on this question.

OBR 7.08(e) says in part:

...if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out.

That says that the force condition is removed at the precise moment that the following runner is put out, and that is what creates the timing dilemma for the umpire. That is why you can have a Reverse Force double play - see OBR 2.00 for the definition.

The general understanding of whether an appeal out may also be a force out comes from OBR 7.12, which says in part:

If, upon appeal, the preceding runner is the third out, no runners following the runner called out shall score. If such a third out is the result of a force play, neither preceding nor following runners shall score.

That says that appeal outs can also be force outs if the conditions that gave rise to the appeal occurred when a force play was in effect.

Put those two rules together and you get greymule's assertion that, for OBR at least, if the force play was in effect when the base was missed then the appeal is a force out BUT if the force was removed before the base was missed then the appeal out is only a time play.

If the batter-runner is put out at first base to remove the force condition then you are correct - there can be no force out, on appeal or otherwise, occurring AFTER that act. The issue here was that it was perfectly possible for the runner to miss the base BEFORE the force condition was removed, so making any subsequent appeal at that base a force out.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Sep 17th, 2003 at 02:17 AM]

[greymule]

Thanks for the explanation of the underlying reasoning, Warren. I had never studied the exact wordings carefully to find the justifications, but instead relied on the BRD, which covers these situations in section 238 and, with an odd situation, section 241.

In fact, 85-238 gives an example of how, in NCAA, two following runners could be put out without cancelling the force on a preceding runner.

It seems to me that NCAA's rule, which differs from those of OBR and Fed, leaves open a very strange possibility:

Score tied, bottom of the ninth. Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, one out. Charles hits a grounder to F3, who steps on 1B to retire Charles. F3 throws home too late to get Abel, who scores with the apparent winning run. But Baker misses 2B and then starts to celebrate. The defense successfully appeals Baker's miss of 2B. Because the force was on at 2B at the time of the pitch, Baker's out is a force out cancelling the winning run.

A strict reading of the rules would indicate that if Baker simply stopped between 1B and 2B, there could be no appeal at 2B (since he didn't actually miss the bag). But since he proceeded to 2B and missed it, he would be at risk of being called out on appeal. Of course, I may be missing some reason that this particular play can't happen.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by greymule
A strict reading of the rules would indicate that if Baker simply stopped between 1B and 2B, there could be no appeal at 2B (since he didn't actually miss the bag). But since he proceeded to 2B and missed it, he would be at risk of being called out on appeal. Of course, I may be missing some reason that this particular play can't happen.

If Baker didn't advance to second, then the defense could get a "normal" force out at the base, cancelling the run.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by greymule
Thanks for the explanation of the underlying reasoning, Warren. I had never studied the exact wordings carefully to find the justifications, but instead relied on the BRD, which covers these situations in section 238 and, with an odd situation, section 241.

In fact, 85-238 gives an example of how, in NCAA, two following runners could be put out without cancelling the force on a preceding runner.

I have only the 2001 Edition of BRD, so I read from sections 229 and 232 on the same subject. The NCAA ruling in 8-5j Ex that the force is not removed for the purposes of a subsequent base running infraction does seem a bit incongruous.

Originally posted by greymule
It seems to me that NCAA's rule, which differs from those of OBR and Fed, leaves open a very strange possibility:

Score tied, bottom of the ninth. Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, one out. Charles hits a grounder to F3, who steps on 1B to retire Charles. F3 throws home too late to get Abel, who scores with the apparent winning run. But Baker misses 2B and then starts to celebrate. The defense successfully appeals Baker's miss of 2B. Because the force was on at 2B at the time of the pitch, Baker's out is a force out cancelling the winning run.

A strict reading of the rules would indicate that if Baker simply stopped between 1B and 2B, there could be no appeal at 2B (since he didn't actually miss the bag). But since he proceeded to 2B and missed it, he would be at risk of being called out on appeal. Of course, I may be missing some reason that this particular play can't happen.

It would seem that, by NCAA rules, R1 (Baker) should allow himself to be caught in a run down between 1st and 2nd, so ensuring that R3 (Abel) scores the winning run on a time play. Of course with the BR (Charles) out at 1st, R1 (Baker) could also either return to 1st or advance to 2nd to seal the winning run. I'm not a fan of rulings that can be manipulated to their advantage by either side in a manner contrary to the objectives of the game.

NCAA doesn't have a monopoly on such rulings. Consider the following play under OBR:

R1, R2. Bottom 9. Score tied. 2 outs. F1 attempts to pick off R1 at 1st but balks and throws wide of F3. The ball remains in play. R2 advances beyond 3rd and attempts to score on F3's throw home. R1 saunters toward 2nd.

R2 represents the winning run. R1 can ensure that R2 has nothing to lose by attempting to score, despite 8.05 AR1 - all he has to do is fail to advance all the way to 2nd until he knows whether or not R2 will be safe at home. If R2 is out at home, R1 had not advanced at least one base on the play following the balk, so the play is discarded and R2 gets reinstated to 3rd while R1 gets 2nd. OBR 8.05 Penalty gives the offense 2 bites at the cherry. Despite the clear intent of OBR 8.05 Approved Ruling 1, R2 was NOT in jeopardy after he passed 3rd base thanks to his team mate's clear thinking.

Cheers

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

If Baker didn't advance to second, then the defense could get a "normal" force out at the base, cancelling the run.

I wouldn't presume to disagree with you, Bob, but how does that sit with the wording of NCAA 8-5j Ex which evidently says, inter alia:

A force is removed whenever "a following runner is put out at a previous base". [BRD 2001: #232]

According to greymule's original scenario, the BR's preceding out at 1st means the force was not in effect on R1 at 2nd EXCEPT for the purpose of an appeal of a base running error at that base [BRD 2001: #229].

Cheers

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

I wouldn't presume to disagree with you, Bob, but how does that sit with the wording of NCAA 8-5j Ex which evidently says, inter alia:

A force is removed whenever "a following runner is put out at a previous base". [BRD 2001: #232]

According to greymule's original scenario, the BR's preceding out at 1st means the force was not in effect on R1 at 2nd EXCEPT for the purpose of an appeal of a base running error at that base [BRD 2001: #229].

Cheers

Sorry -- I missed the part where F3 stepped on the base.

[wpiced]

Do we have an English/grammer teacher in the house.

The general understanding of whether an appeal out may also be a force out comes from OBR 7.12, which says in part:
"If, upon appeal, the preceding runner is the third out, no runners following the runner called out shall score. If such a third out is the result of a force play, neither preceding nor following runners shall score."

That says that appeal outs can also be force outs if the conditions that gave rise to the appeal occurred when a force play was in effect.

Does OBR 7.12 really say that?

"If, upon appeal, ..." speaks to appeal plays being a third out. "If such a third out is the result of a force play..." speaks to third outs NOT appeal plays.

As I carfully read 7.12, it seem to me that it does not give permission to call and appeal play a force out even though a preceeding player has been put out first.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by wpiced
Do we have an English/grammer teacher in the house.

Does OBR 7.12 really say that?

"If, upon appeal, ..." speaks to appeal plays being a third out. "If such a third out is the result of a force play..." speaks to third outs NOT appeal plays.

As I carfully read 7.12, it seem to me that it does not give permission to call and appeal play a force out even though a preceeding player has been put out first.

With all due respect, Marty, I think you may have missed the import of the word "such" in the subject citation. "If such a third out ..." - meaning a third out on appeal - "...is the result of a force play ..." That clearly points to force outs gained on appeal. IOW, if the third out on appeal is also a force out, then neither preceding nor following runners may score.

Here is a citation that covers, from an article entitled Running the Bases - Part I by Nick Bremigan published in the March 1978 issue of Referee Magazine:

Play: Runners at first and third, two outs. The batter singles. R-3 crosses the plate, R-1 advances to third, but missed second. The defense appeals and R-1 is declared out for the third out. Does the run score?

Rule 7.10(b) clearly covers the fact that R-1 is out on appeal. The question really is, then, whether an appeal can result in a force out. It most definitely can, as can be easily substantiated by reviewing several of the plays covered under Rule 4.09(a) in the case book. The run, therefore, cannot score, since the third out is a force out.

Although the subject rule is not mentioned specifically, many of the cited Casebook plays for OBR 4.09(a), and the related Casebook Comment, rely heavily on the wording of OBR 7.12 for their effect.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[greymule]

Do we have an English/grammer teacher in the house.

I spent a dozen years teaching writing and grammar at a several large companies, with particular attention to communicating, unambiguously and concisely, exactly what is meant, and not leaving any room for misinterpretation. Companies have on occasion lost millions of dollars because employees misunderstood unclear instructions. My work involved methods and procedures, policies and directives, replies to customers, public relations documents, communications with government, and so on. Since correct grammar aids in accuracy (and credibility), we spent two full days (out of five) on it.

Long ago, I spent a few years teaching high school English, but I can't say that really qualifies—it involved very little grammar or writing.

Now I spend my time editing medical education and research papers, as well as reports to various foundations and government agencies. I edit documents all day long for correctness and accuracy. Unfortunately, I can't turn off the switch when I read rule books and case books.

Now to the the baseball question:

"If, upon appeal, ..." speaks to appeal plays being a third out. "If such a third out is the result of a force play..." speaks to third outs NOT appeal plays.

The key is the word such. OBR 7.12 begins by talking about a preceding runner failing to touch or retouch a base, a situation that leads to appeal plays. Then it says, "If, upon appeal, the preceding runner is the third out . . ." and then, "If such third out is the result of a force play. . . ." The word such defines the third out they're talking about as being an appeal out. Had they meant the sentence to refer to third outs in general, they would have said simply, "If a third out is the result of a force play." (They could have said that, too. Appeal plays would have been included!)

The various rule books contain many passages that are ambiguous and sometimes even technically factually incorrect. Rule books also do not cover every contingency. As can be seen from these various examples involving missed bases and force plays, if all we had were the words in the rule book, we could argue these things indefinitely. So we have case books and PBUC and BRD and J/R and calls to MLB umpires.