I have a little Rules-Question about a situation, we are dicussing with a lot of german umpires actually in our Umpire-Bboard.

Situation:
R1, Count 3:2, less than 2 out.

1. we have a balk call followed by a pitch
2. Ball 4: BR --> 1st, R1 -->2nd [8.05 Penalty no reference to the balk any more)
3. Appeal at 1st base against BR is enforced because of BOT 6.07 (b) + (a)1

What's your Call?

Are we now having conflicting rules? What happens with R1?

What is your opinion? I couldn't find anything in J/R-Manual/ Evans - ABR/ Childress - BRD

Best christmas wishes from Germany

Jens Wolfhagen

Unless there's some unusual wrinkle that I don't know about, the appeal for BOT (or BOO) stands, and the balk call is irrelevant, washed away with the play.

I know what you're thinking—that the BR didn't actually make it to 1B since whoever was supposed to bat was called out. Still, the out for failing to bat in the proper order would stand. In fact, it was the guy who failed to bat who is out, not the BR. But even if the BR had been called out for missing 1B after, let's say, hitting a triple after the balk call he would be considered to have reached 1B for the purposes of the balk rule.

This is OBR only. In Fed, the balk call kills the play right away. I'm not sure about NCAA.

I agree with greymule and would only add that you cannot have an OUT with the BOT <i>unless</i> the improper batter <u>completes</u> the proper batter's turn at bat. Therefore the effect of the base on balls MUST be dealt with first under the rules (ie balk penalty ignored) or the BOT can't happen.

Ignore the balk on the forced walk.

Bad batter out without a doubt.

<i>{Yeah, I know, but I couldn't resist :D}</i>

Since the improper batter completed his time at bat the appeal is honored. Anything that resulted from the actions of the improper batters are null and void. Proper batter is out Balk is null and void and R1 returns to first. G.

[Edited by Gee on Dec 13th, 2003 at 06:17 PM]

You are correct, George - R1 is normally returned to 1st base under OBR 6.07(b.2).

In this case, however, R1 could be considered to have advanced either by the balk - <i>first</i> defensive error - or the base on balls - <i>second</i> defensive error.

I would apply OBR 6.07(b.2) if there had been NO BALK, but since there <i>was</i> a balk I'd let R1 keep the advance. They can't have it both ways. See the Note following OBR 6.07(b.2) for my justification.

You cannot NULLIFY the balk AND give the defense a return to R1 with an appeal out when THEY are the ones who have committed <b>2</b> errors to the offense's <b>1</b> error.

Cheers

Warren:
Isn't you that is getting two bites from the apple?
You are saying the runner stays because of the balk. If the BR advances forcing the runner ahead then the balk is ignorred.8.05 penalty
The only way your arguement works is if it was earlier in the count.

I don't understand that one, Warren. The way I see it, with the base on balls causing the advance of R1 to 2B and BR to 1B, the balk is wiped away. It didn't happen. The advance of R1 to 2B is a legal advance caused by the walk, not the balk. Now, with BR on 1B having completed his at-bat, the appeal is a separate, later event.

If we follow the logic that way, greymule, then when the appeal is upheld R1 should be returned to 1st base under 6.07(b.2). Net effect is Defensive Errors=2, Offensive Errors=1 and Defense <i>profits</i> with 1 out AND R1 returned to 1st base. That's the way the appeal rule is written.

By my logic EITHER R1 makes it to 2nd on the walk - appeal for BOT denied, balk ignored - OR R1 makes it to 2nd on the balk - appeal for BOT upheld, balk enforced [see Note following 6.07(b.2)]. According to 8.05 Penalty the balk is ignored only if BOTH the batter and R1 advance on the play. The batter did NOT advance on the play, being called out on appeal for allowing an improper batter to complete his turn at bat. Enforce the balk.

The point is that the BOT appeal under 6.07(a) is still a part of the action that results from the base on balls. Until that appeal is either denied or upheld you can't declare that all runners advanced on the play. That is not the same as a missed base appeal at 1st, where the batter-runner is considered to have advanced for the purpose of the rule. In that case the balance is Defensive errors=1(the balk) and Offensive errors=2 (missed base AND BOT). The balance is rightly with the offense in that case.

I try to enforce the rules in a way that ensures neither side gains an advantage not intended under the rules. I don't think the rule makers intended for the defense to commit two errors and gain an out with no advance as the result.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Yes, I believe the offense is entitled to "<i>two bites from the apple</i>" because the defense committed two errors - a balk and a base on balls.

Take the balk out of the equation:

Under 6.07(b.2) when the appeal is upheld R1 should be returned to 1st base - George's ruling.

Take the batting out of turn out of the equation:

Under 8.05 Penalty, all runners advanced on the play and R1 remains at 2nd base.

Put them together and Gee wants BOTH the balk ignored AND R1 returned even though the defense committed 2 errors to the offense's 1! That's an advantage not intended under the rules IMHO. See my reply to greymule for the logic.

Hope this helps

Cheers.

Really LOOPY!
 

Nope ... "WHOOOPS!" :D

I couldn't fix the problem from my end. You'll have to delete the "<"img">" tag from your original messages to stop us all from looping indefinitely to a blank page.

Cheers

I've deleted the offending post.

Thanks, Bob.

Cheers

I think I see your point, Warren, that the batter did not actually advance to 1B on the base on balls because his at bat disappeared with the out on his teammate who failed to bat. You're considering it all part of the same play.

But to me, BR <i>did</i> advance, and that play ends and another (the appeal) begins. I don't see adding up total mistakes to see which side has the edge. You can make 5 mistakes, and other side can make 1 mistake that gets you off the hook for all 5. Give me some time and I'll think of the play.

It's a good theoretical question, though. I'm surprised more people haven't chipped in. Maybe the crazy popup problem chased them off.

Only the improper batter-runner advanced, greymule. His at bat, <i>and</i> the advance it engendered, was illegal or the appeal would have been denied. That's also why R1 gets returned to 1st base, absent the balk - see 6.07(b.2). Using the balance of errors is only a shorthand way of explaining the logic.

It's a much tougher question than it first appears on the surface. I think you're probably right about the looping problem scaring off other posters. I hope they give the thread a second shot.

Cheers

OK, using your logic answer what happened to the BR. Did he get called out for advancing on the walk and batting improperly? If so then the runner must return.
If you are saying enforce the balk then the batter is still at bat. Therefore, the batter is simply switched. You can't have it both ways.

The B-R (an improper batter) was removed from 1st base having advanced there illegally - base not acquired so <i>enforce the balk</i>.

The proper batter (yet to appear at the plate in this inning) is called out on appeal for allowing his team mate to complete his at bat out of turn - base not acquired so <i>enforce the balk</i>.

According to 6.07(b.2)Note, R1's advance is LEGAL because he advanced on the balk - neither the proper batter NOR the improper batter legally acquired a base because the BOT appeal was upheld. See 8.05 Penalty.

What you apparently want to do is to cancel the BOT penalty because the defense balked on ball 4? If they had balked on any other pitch, <i>except</i> ball 4 or a dropped 3rd strike, then R1 would still be entitled to advance and the BOT penalty would remain on the table for later. Why not on those two pitches?

I think the problem is in presuming that enforcing the balk somehow means the batter cannot be out. Thereby hangs the entire dilemma in the subject scenario. But consider that the purpose of the balk rule is to protect the <b>BASE RUNNER</b> from illegal deception by the pitcher, <i>not</i> to protect the batter from an out on appeal for failing to bat in his proper turn.

Cheers

I'm sorry for the late reaction to the above statement, greymule. I've been mulling it over all day because it didn't sit quite right with me but I couldn't think why on the spur of the moment.

A "play" that includes an illegal advance or retreat - ie. a "missed" base - and the appeal play that draws the umpire's attention to the base running error and requests a determination are NOT separate plays. One event, the appeal, is a request for a ruling on the legality of the other, the "play".

For that reason I'd say your approach that the appeal is a second, separate "play" from the batter-runner's advance only begs the question. An appeal for a base running infraction is NOT, by rule, a "play or attempted play" for the purpose of the appeal rule. I would apply that same logic to the batting out of turn appeal - that appeal is not a "play or an attempted play" in its own right. It is instead a proper request for a ruling on the legitimacy of the play just completed.

Cheers

Here's the direct quote from MLB: (8:05)PENALTY: The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk.
As soon as the walk occurs, it appears to cancel the balk. Then the defense appeals BOT. R1 is out & R2 goes back to 1st.

Warren:
That's exactly what I'm saying. If the balk had occurred earlier in the count then he stays. Once it happens on ball 4 or uncaught strike 3 then the AB is over and the runner is returning. I don't think we will have a meeting of the minds but we can have fun disagreeing.

MLB rule 6.07(b) When an improper batter becomes a runner or is put out, and the defensive team appeals to the umpire before the first pitch to the next batter of either team, or before any play or attempted play, the umpire shall (1) declare the proper batter out; and (2) nullify any advance or score made because of a ball batted by the improper batter or because of the improper batter's advance to first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise.

The key word here is OTHERWISE. That covers a balk. R1 is out & R2 has to return to 1st.

No - you're misinterpreting that. You say "When an improper batter becomes a runner or is put out, and the defensive team appeals to the umpire before the first pitch to the next batter of either team, or before any play or attempted play, the umpire shall (1) declare the proper batter out; and (2) nullify any advance or score made because of a ball batted by the improper batter or because of the improper batter's advance to first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise.

The key word here is OTHERWISE. That covers a balk. R1 is out & R2 has to return to 1st."

Replace the word otherwise with the word balk then, if you think that is appropriate. Then the sentence becomes:

...nullify any advance... made because of ... the improper batter's advance to first base on a ... balk.

The batter did not advance to first base on a balk! He advanced on a walk. If the walk was the only reason R1 was moved to 2nd, you'd be right ... but it wasn't. The walk is nullified, thus leaving the balk as the proper reason to put the runner on 2nd. You guys are double-dipping here.

Still trying to see the light. What if, after the balk, BR had hit a home run. After the successful appeal for batting out of order, would you still put R1 on 2B, or is there something about the base on balls that's unique?

In the original case, why can't the offense claim, "Since BR did not actually advance to 1B, we'll opt not to take the result of the play but instead take the balk. So advance R1 to 2B, and we'll replace BR with the proper batter, who will assume BR's count"?

[Edited by greymule on Dec 17th, 2003 at 02:04 PM]

Yes, I would still put R1 on 2nd base, the base he would be entitled to because of the balk.

The improper batter-runner is removed from the bases and any advance he made is cancelled, including a home run. But R1 was NOT only entitled to advance on the base on balls that FOLLOWED the balk - under 8.05 Penalty he was also entitled to advance on the balk IF the other runners or the batter-runner did not reach the base to which they would be entitled BECAUSE of the balk. The proper batter did NOT reach 1st base LEGALLY, although it appears so pending the outcome of the BOT appeal. The proper batter did NOT reach 1st base at all!

The balk is a DELAYED DEAD BALL that is only effective when any play that follows is complete. The BOT appeal ensures that the following play, whether a hit an error a base on balls, or otherwise, is NOT fully complete until any appeal is determined. Appeals alter the results of plays every day.

If the appeal is upheld, enforce the balk.

If the appeal is denied, allow the walk.

Either way R1 is entitled to 2nd base.

If anyone still doubts the validity of that conclusion, here is the text of OBR 6.07(b.2)Note:<ul>If a <b>runner</b> advances, while the improper batter is at bat, on a stolen base, <b>balk</b>, wild pitch or passed ball, such advance is legal.<i>{my emphasis}</i></ul>Maybe we will end up agreeing to disagree, just like the original poster and his German compatriots. I think the ruling is clear but I can easily accept that others may not. It has been fun discussing it though. On that we will almost always agree! :D

Cheers

Please read OBR 6.07(b.2)NOTE, which makes a clear EXCEPTION in the case of balks, among other things.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

I'm not ready to give up having fun yet! :D

So if the defense balks on ball 4 or strike 3 you would deprive all offensive runners of any advance? Why?

For starters the balk rule is designed to protect RUNNERS. That protection is NOT dependent upon their team mates batting in the appropriate order.

The balk is a DELAYED DEAD BALL. Anything that follows it is only allowed in order to see if any runners can advance at least as far as they would be entitled to advance as the result of the balk. If any runner has to return FOR ANY REASON then he has NOT "ADVANCED" within the meaning of the rules and the balk penalty should therefore be enforced.

An appeal under OBR 6.07 is NOT a separate play! It is a request for a ruling on the legitimacy of any play action just completed. If the action, including the improper batter's advance on a walk, is ruled illegitimate then it is nullified, which means it NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore the base on balls NEVER HAPPENED. Enforce the balk.

<i>{All Caps used only for emphasis. No shouting intended}</i>

Hope this helps

Cheers

But Warren, you are missing the other half of the argument. If you apply the balk then the ball doesn't get called. Because they appealed at first base, everyone knows he is wrong. That means the improper batter stays at bat. Being he returns then you just switch batters.
If you agree then we would then be in agreement. Any other way I just see how you can get an out and the balk call.

Hi Everybody,

my name is Marc and I am one of the german umpires who goes the same way like warren.

6.07 b2note says that the balk stays when the balk happend during the at bat of the improper batter.

And this is the point. The improper batter is still at bat.

Some people will say now that according to 6.04 the improper batter has ended his at bat and therefore we can not use 6.07b2note.

I think this is wrong because 6.04 says that a batter ends his at bat LEGALLY when he is put out or he becomes a runner.

But how can an impropper batter ends his at bat legally?

marc

P.S. Sorry for my bad englisch but I hope you guys understand my point of few.

From 6.02 : "NOTE: If a runner advances, while the improper batter is at bat, on a stolen base, balk, wild pitch or passed ball, such advance is legal."

R2 doesn't advance while the improper batter is at bat. R2 advanced on the BB. Once the appeal for BOT is confirmed, R1 is out, and R2 goes back to first. You can't say that the runner can advance AFTER the at bat. It's not what the rule says.


SEPARATE NIT PICKING:
"In this case, however, R1 could be considered to have advanced either by the balk - first defensive error - or the base on balls - second defensive error." from Warren, earlier.

Why is a BB considered an error? Maybe the defense was afraid of the hitter.... Maybe they realized the BOT and tried to get the out!

The at bat isn't legally ended until the results of any appeal are known, the same as no run is legally scored until the results of any base running error are appealed and dealt with OR until the next pitch, play or attempted play by the defense.


See OBR 5.05.

Note that an <i>intentional</i> base on balls, clearly signalled and executed, should obviously not be considered a defensive error for these purposes.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Enforcing the balk would normally nullify the pitch IF the batter and all runners did not ADVANCE on the following play. Yes, you would bring the batter back to bat with the same count and advance the runners.

BUT, that doesn't apply to actions that result from offensive errors such as BOT, passing a preceding runner or being thrown out after having overrun the advance base and missing it in passing.

Some people would have any and all outs made following a balk nullified, even if the runner has advanced beyond the base to which he would have been entitled but for the balk - see OBR 8.05 Penalty and AR1.

That argument was waged a couple of months ago over at eteamz, with Jim Evans eventually declaring by proxy that the out is nullified despite the wording of AR1. I'm still not comfortable with that interpretation. It allows the offense to manipulate the balk penalty to their advantage to avoid making an out while trying for runs on extra bases following a balk.

My best advice is to keep it simple. The balk occurred. Subsequent action is only to determine if all runners including the batter-runner advanced safely to or beyond the base to which they would have been entitled on the balk. The BOT appeal ensures that can never be the case when the B-R was an improper batter.

If there was NO balk, R1 would rightly be returned under 6.07(b.2) ... but there WAS a balk, so R1 should be kept at 2nd base under 6.07(b.2)Note.

Claiming the improper batter's at bat was officially over just to prevent the advance of R1 on the ball 4/ strike 3 balk is an advantage for the defense clearly not intended by the rules IMHO.

Cheers

Warren, please consider:

The decision balk or play and the BOT-decision are two different plays.

Imagine the situation as the umpire:
We're at the time when the walk just happened.
You have to decide, stands the balk or the play.
You know NOTHING about the BOT, you don't know if the defence will make a BOT appeal!!

You have now to decide: balk or play (of course by OR 8.05 penalty).
Remember, whatever you decide, the other way will be thrown out of the window completly.
If the balk stands, no part of the play will have any effects.
If the play stands, the balk will be nullified COMPLETLY and FOREVER.
You can't have him back.

So, after the BOT appeal, there is no balk at all any more and so no way to use it to put the runner on 2nd.

There are no loops!

TM

Hi Marc, I'm at your heels again,

to answer your question: just by making NO BOT appeal

In this case the improper ends his at bat legally.

By this answer you can also see there is no sense in making a difference between the proper or the improper batter ends his at bat, the ACTUAL batter ends his at bat, that's the important point.

Whether there is a BOT appeal following is an absolut new thing.

TM

They are indeed two different <i><b>decisions</i></b>, but they are both part of the same <i><b>play</b></i> that commenced with the pitcher starting his delivery and ended with the successful appeal for batting out of turn. The appeal is simply a request for the umpire to rule on whether the play was completed legitimately or not.

This is part of the problem, TM. You haven't gone back far enough in the action. The balk penalty says the ball is DEAD immediately the balk is committed - ie BEFORE the following pitch became a ball - but we delay that dead ball only to see if the offense can ADVANCE on any following play even more than the minimum one base the balk penalty would allow.

On the play that followed THIS balk, the offense did NOT advance because the play was ruled illegal on appeal under 6.07(a). Enforce the balk. R1 stays at 2nd under 6.07(b.2)Note.

Note the use of the word "ADVANCE" in relation to runners in the balk Penalty, as opposed to "REACH" in relation to the batter-runner. That word has a very specific meaning. If R1 ends up back at 1st base then he did <i>not</i> "ADVANCE" at least one base on the play. Oh sure, he walked to 2nd and then was called back, but he did <i>not</i> "ADVANCE".

Everything you said was true up until you drew the conclusion "<i>So, after the BOT appeal, there is no balk at all any more and so no way to use it to put the runner on 2nd.</i>" That conclusion is NOT supported by the rules. The balk happened FIRST. It takes precedence over ALL action that follows. The ball is technically dead immediately the balk was committed, according to 8.05 Penalty, but any following play is allowed to proceed in case the offense can make <i>more</i> bases than the balk penalty would allow. That "play" does NOT end when the improper batter reaches 1st base on the base on balls. It only ends when the results of the defensive BOT appeal are known.

Inherent in the rules is that all advances on the base path must be LEGAL. There can be no legal advance if an appeal against that advance is subsequently upheld. With no legal advance you must enforce the balk. <ol><li>The improper batter "reached" 1st base on the walk, but <li>that was declared an illegal advance on appeal so <li>the advance made by R1 on the walk was cancelled.<li>Since R1 did not advance on the walk he is now entitled to advance on the balk penalty.</ol>TM you cannot use one defensive error - ie the unintentional base on balls - to cancel the effects of another defensive error that occurred first - ie the balk. The moment the balk is committed R1 is entitled to advance to 2nd base. The only way that doesn't happen as a Penalty for the balk is if R1 gets to advance legally at least that far for some other reason. Walking to 2nd and being called back does NOT constitute an "advance" within the meaning of the rules.

Hope this helps

Cheers

NO! The improper batter doesn't end his at bat "legally" until the next pitch, play or attempted play prevents any further appeal under 6.07(a)!

The rule on batting out of turn requires vigilance on the part of <i>both</i> the offense <i>and</i> the defense. If the defense fails to notice the error before they make a pitch, play or attempted play - an appeal is NOT a play or attempted play - only THEN does the advance of the improper batter become legal and permanently changes the subsequent batting order. Until then the whole "play" is in "limbo", just like any apparent run scored by a runner who missed a base in the process of advancing.

IMHO there is too much reliance on the false notion that an appeal for BOT is "<i>an absolut new thing</i>" or another "play" entirely. It isn't! An appeal is simply a request for the umpire to declare whether or not the immediately preceding play action was completed legally.

If the batter-runner's advance to 1st base was not completed legally, then neither was the forced advance of R1 - 6.07(b.2). That being the case R1 didn't "advance" on the play so he is entitled to advance on the balk penalty - 6.07(b.2)Note and 8.05 Penalty. The balk occurred during the improper batter's at bat. At that moment R1 was entitled to advance to 2nd base on the balk penalty UNLESS he already got there legally some other way. He didn't.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Warren:
I just finished a 18 hr day so I'm not sure I followed all the post from today. Are you now eliminating the out call on the BOO and replacing the batter with the current count? This would also leave R1 on second because of the balk.

Warren,

my Post about legally ending a at bat was in a way incomplete. (lack of time)
Now a give the complete answer:

The term "legally" in legally ending a at bat has nothing to do with proper/improper batter in a BOT.
OBR 6.04 says it loud and clear.

If the batter becomes a runner, he ends his at bat legally.

Has the improper batter become a runner, when he is walked??
Of course he is now a runner, so he ends his at bat legally.
Don't get confused by the term "legally".

OBR speaks of proper/improper batter, not legal/illegal batter, and so by good reason.
Because just to avoid this mix-up.

By just reading OBR 6.04 it is very clear.

TM

For all other readers, this is the opinion of Rick Roder in a answer he sent to JensWo, who initiated this thread:
TM

@ TM

But it is still not clear if the question to Rick Roder was posed right.

I have sended an e-mail to Rick yesterday and explaned the problem and I also told him to take a look in this board.

I hope that i will receive an answer later.

marc

how it would be done in US pro baseball
 

Gentlemen,

Marc Zwikirsch and Jens Wolfhagen both have asked me to chime in on this play.

Here's the thoughts/logic behind what would be done in professional baseball (US):

Rules violations are normally dealt with in the order they occur and require enforcement.

In other words, even though the batter is improper before the balk is made, he may become proper if there is no appeal (the violation does not require immediate action).

An umpire is not required to start adding up violations and deal with the overall play in that manner. He is required to enforce each rule as it happens.

So, on this play he calls the balk. Then, upon seeing that the batter and all runners get a base, he makes a mental note that the balk is nullified. It is no longer a factor.

Then the batting out of order appeal is made. He then enforces that rule as written; proper batter out, R1 back to first.

To do it any other way confuses the situation and brings in abstract arguments of theory and practice. When in doubt in such situations: Make it easy for the umpire! (MLB Jeff Nelson's advice when I asked him about this play.)

Hope that helps everybody...I am not sure how this play would be handled in the amateur ranks, but you can be certain that in professional baseball the umpires would put R1 back at first.

Merry Christmas everybody! Rick Roder

OK Warren, you've told us how we're "wrong". Now YOU get to tell Rick Roder how he's wrong! This should be good!!!

Thanks to all of you for bringing baseball to a cold December in Illinois!

Happy Holidays!

[Edited by tornado on Dec 19th, 2003 at 06:56 AM]

For once, FED rules make more sense! A balk creates an immediate dead ball, so you never have to worry about a following action.

Thanks, Rick, for giving a logical explanation. A lot of "would haves/could haves/should haves" if we don't follow your logic. As an example, suppose F2 fired down to 2nd base after the balk, and F4 tagged R1. Then the B/R is appealed for BOT? Why, using Warren's logic, would R1 be entitled to return to 1st?

I like Rick's reasoning.

Jerry

Fed may have some (deservedly) criticized rules (if the "accidental force play" still exists, that's one of them), but I think they do handle some things better than OBR. Appeals for missed/left bases, for example, in which OBR, without the dead ball appeal, has complex and difficult variations involving nullification, continuing action, etc.

To me, common sense dictates that a balk be an immediate dead ball, which of course it is in Fed. On the other hand, in Fed, if the umpire sees spit flying off the ball on its way to the plate, and the batter hits the pitch out of the park, the proper call is to nullify the home run and call an illegal pitch. That's a tough one to swallow.

[Edited by greymule on Dec 23rd, 2003 at 09:31 AM]

Accidental force play?

Accidental Force Play:
If a runner misses a base and the defense inadvertenly touches that base while the play is continuing or for an apparent 4th out (e.g. an outfielder catches what looks like the 3rd out, and while enroute to the dugout he stops to brush off the base, which was previously missed by the runner), that was treated as an "appeal" under FED rules. Has more to do with any intervening runs being scored than anything else.

<b>an outfielder catches what looks like the 3rd out, and while enroute to the dugout he stops to brush off the base, which was previously missed by the runner</b>

Actually, in this case the defense would still have to appeal to the umpire. This missed base would not be a force play after the fly out, so the "accidental force play" would not apply.

Here's an example of the AFP: Abel on 1B, Baker singles to right. Abel slides safely into 3B but missed 2B. F5 nonchalantly places a tag on Abel anyway. Abel is called out on the AFP for missing 2B.

Or: Abel hits an inside-the-park home run but missed 1B. Abel scores and F2 immediately hands him the ball as a souvenir. Abel is out on the AFP, since F2 "tagged" him. (Save your breath, guys. I know the miss at 1B is not technically a force play.)

We (at least) once had a long thread about just at what point the AFP no longer is in effect. Apparently, the end of "continuing action" voids the possibility, but of course that term is not precisely defined.

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?