Abandonment, Force Outs, End of Game?

[BJ Moose]

I'm obsessing (slightly) about a possible conundrum in NABPL. So consider.

On my Assoc List we are debating one of E.Barkuis' Rhubarbs.
Briefly. 2 outs, bases loaded, tie game, bottom of extra frames, Batter SINGLES! R3 touches home, B-R touches 1st.. BUT.. R1 only gets half way to 2nd, then heads toward 3rd base dugout to join celebration. Def is heading off field dejected.

Answer is -> Call R1 out for abandonment, no runs, go onto NEXT extra inning!

This would HAVE to assume that the call is a force play.

But now a conflict. NAPBL 3.14(play). Same as above, but Batter hits HOME RUN. BR does NOT advance all the way to 2nd but head to join celebration. Ump Calls R1 OUT for abandonment BEFORE R3 touches plate.
RULING: No runs, time play.

Huh?? First, if it really is a TIME play.. then lets apply some real world practicality.

WHAT UMPIRE in is RIGHT MIND would make this call BEFORE R3 TOUCHED HOME? Assuming nothing weird , so a couple seconds of delay... R3 touched, B-R touched... and you have a classic 4.09b END OF GAME. Heck, after all, were you REALLY SURE R1 had abandoned?

I also see conflict with the orig sitch and answer. If a "force" situation with a live ball base hit.. why not a force situation on the home run?

And one more consideration back to the original sitch. (Bases loaded SINGLE) Would it matter WHEN the ump called R1 out for abandonment? Meaning before or after R3 touches home?

[bob jenkins]

Moose --

I think the difference is between a single and homerun.

On the single, it's a live ball, and all (forced) runners must advance.

On the homerun, it's a dead ball award, and only the BR and R3 must advance. The other runners (well, all runners), though, cannot make an out before R3 scores.

As to the "practicality" issue, I agree -- but the assumption given in the play is that it happened. Now we must rule on it.

[cmcallm]

Had one of these in a Missouri Valley game a few years ago. Tie score, bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, two out. Batter walks. He advances to, and touches first. Rummer from third advances to, and touches home. Runner from second advances to, and touches third. Runner on first gets about halfway to second, then runs to home plate to celebrate. The catcher, paying attention, ran right to second base and appealed the runner - who was forced to advance - didn't. Second base umpire, seeing the whole thing, rang the runner up. I, as the plate umpire, had the dubious task of telling the home coach the run didn't count.
Stunned, he said, "I think I want to protest the game". I replied, "I would". Visitors won it in 14. Conference calls followed most of the next day, and the appeal was denied. We were told that, had it been a pro game, the run would have scored - the only two runners that "counted" were the batter and the guy on third - but NCAA's Bill Thurston gave us a different twist. He said EVERYONE had to advance. Funniest thing about it all - the visiting coach was ejected in the bottom of the ninth for arguing a whacker and never the wild play OR his team win the game in 14!
I love this game -

[Patrick Szalapski]

"This would HAVE to assume that the call is a force play."

Wait a minute, Moose, you have missed an important interpretation. When a runner is called out for abandonment, it is NEVER in and of itself a force out. If a runner abandons before reaching his advance base, the defense may then appeal to record a "fourth out" at the base to which the runner failed to advance. (J/R sec 6.5, page 30, clarification of 7.10 and second example)

So, in Moose's play, I have:

RULING: The call is not a force. Run scores, defense may appeal, but they have no clue. Game over, circle the wagons.

P-Sz