The FED "Accidental Force Play" has been removed for the upcoming season, so if you didn't know what it was, you won't have to know what it is! Thank goodness!

Glad to hear that JJ reports Fed's termination of the AFP. So now how will Fed call the play in which the BR beats the throw at 1B but misses the bag and F3 steps on it anyway? Is it pure OBR now, where the defense must appeal?

<B>Glad to hear that JJ reports Fed's termination of the AFP. So now how will Fed call the play in which the BR beats the throw at 1B but misses the bag and F3 steps on it anyway? Is it pure OBR now, where the defense must appeal?
__________________
greymule</B>

That would be correct.

Note: I edited the original message.

As most of you know, I post only on the rarest of occasions. Since Jens mentioned the BRD, I'll make one of those exceptions here.

Answer one: The common sense approach is to read the exact language of 6.07: Able, the proper batter is out; Baker, the improper batter is removed from first; and R1 returns to first.

He didn't advance on the balk; he advanced because Baker walked.

Believe me, that's the answer every protest board would enforce. You can't confuse adminstrators with interpretations. That's a strength of protest boards that we often denigrate.

There is an interesting PBUC interpretation that clarifies the "common sense approach." For those with the BRD, you'll find the information in section 342. <i>Note: There are three typos in that section, all of which I have corrected in the 2004 edition.</i>

<i>Play:</i> R1, R2, 0 out: B1 flies to right. R2 tags, R1 goes half way. The fly is caught, and R2 advances to third. The defense wishes to appeal. The pitcher tries to throw to third for a tag of the runner and balks but throws wild. R3 scores, but R1 is thrown out trying to reach third on the throw home.

Fitzpatrick - PBUC - in phone call to me, 11/08/01: Because the baserunners advanced to the bases they would have received, we proceed without reference to the balk - as it applies to their advance. But a balk <i>anytime</i> cancels the right of the defense to appeal.

The point: The powers-that-be don't reference the balk, but they reference the balk. Very strange!

Answer two: That <i>could</i> mean that in the enciting play of this thread R1 would be allowed to remain at second: After all, the pitcher <i>did</i> balk.

The problem with this second answer, and any rationale offered by umpires who want to leave R1 at second, is a practical one: Nobody in authority really cares about close, analytical scruitiny of the rules.

What does it say?
What will we do?

Where I umpire, 99 out of 100 umpires would call out Abel and bring R1 back to first. (I'd be one of those 99.) The one who wouldn't bring him back, obviously a follower of this board, won't be calling here very long. (No, it's not old Smitty. He's too dumb to think of anything else.)

[Edited by Carl Childress on Dec 26th, 2003 at 04:14 PM]

"Play: R1, R2, 0 out: B1 flies to right. R2 tags, R1 goes half way. The fly is caught, and R2 advances to second. The defense wishes to appeal. The pitcher tries to throw to third for a tag of the runner and balks but throws wild. R3 scores, but R1 is thrown out trying to reach third on the throw home."

Am I missing something? "R3 scores..." - where did R3 come from? Other than that, I agree with Carl's ruling...

I fixed the play. R2 tags and goes to third. When they throw the ball away trying to appeal, R3 (formerly R2) scores. I just had R2 tagging and going to -- second. That's one neat trick, ain't it?