|
Sun Aug 08, 2004, 11:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
From the J/R:
A batter-runner who advances to first base and then returns to the home plate side of first base can be tagged out while off the base. For example: A shortstop's bad throw is gloved along the home plate side of first base and the batter-runner dives to first and is safe. The batter-runner stands up to dust himself off and is standing a couple of feet to the home plate side of first base: such batter-runner is out if tagged off base. Well, though the purpose of this example is clearly not to address whether any "force" is reinstated, it doesn't say that tagging 1B is an option, so I guess J/R feels that the runner must be tagged. However, I don't see why they need to explain this at all. Obviously a runner not on the base can be tagged out. Interesting that J/R puts this in red type, which signifies "innovations that the authors believe to be unique or original to Rules of Baseball: A Comprehensive Reorganization and Interpretation . . .[or] interpretations of plays or rules that have not yet been specifically addressed by the Major or Minor Leagues." So I'll agree that the best evidence says there must be a tag. cbfoulds: I think this matter was ambiguous and worth exploring, as there is solid reasoning both ways and no definitive ruling. I regret that you consider people who do not have your cognitive faculties or share your exalted senior status to be "idiots."
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide! 
|
|
Sun Aug 08, 2004, 11:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, greymule, I wasn't thinking of you during my latest post on this thread: in fact, I kinda presumed that you had become, however reluctantly, convinced [which, it appears, you are, if not by anything I wrote]. I was thinking of the dolt who wrote "BR IS forced to 1st", without even an attempt at logical reasoning, in the middle of the thread, despite the prior citations of rules by myself and others. It is true, I have little patience with folk who "reason" along the lines of "I think this, so it must be so, and if the book says different, then the book must be wrong." While hardheaded, you do not appear, so far as I have seen, to be one of those. However, I stand by by comment that I have NEVER heard or read a LOGICAL argument for "BR forced @ 1st" as it applies to anything other than whether BR is out is the base is tagged before BR gets there.
So, if I offended you, I appologize. --Carter [Edited by cbfoulds on Aug 9th, 2004 at 12:44 AM]
|
|
Wed Aug 11, 2004, 02:53am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Probably the best argument for a force play at first (FPAF) is that the OBR says it is a force play in plain, unmistakeable words. See 2.00 Definitions, Double play (b), 1st example. Or see my post on page 3 of the recent thread Force Play? which was last posted to on July 26. Now why should we accept this example in preference to the interpretation many posters here give to the definition of a Force Play? 'Cause the main reason examples are provided in rulebooks, textbooks, IRS publications, etc. is that they allow us to compare our underｓtanding of a rule or definition as it applies to a specific situation with the ruling that was actually intended by the author(s), When our understanding or interpretation of the definition differs from the outcome provided in an example, then we should be suspicious of our understanding, since it is much easier for an author to proof and verify a specific example than to verify a rule or definition against every possible situation. Our suspicion should increase if the rule or definition in question is poorly drawn, vague, or in conflict with other rules/definitons. And of the definitions in the OBR, that of a Force Play is among the more poorly drawn. The comment following the definition is 10 times longer than the definition itself, is the longest comment attached to any definition, and it begins with the words "Confusion regarding this play." I won't go into the several specific deficiencies of the definition; the point is that this definition is a poor foundation from which to draw logical conclusions. Consider also that the rulebook nowhere says that there isn't a FPAF, and the addition of the the words "other than the batter-runner" to the definition would have sufficed　to lay the entire matter to rest. Yet the rule book does find the space to point out the obvious fact that a runner returning to retouch following a catch is "not a force play" (4.09 last cmt) Now on to pooh-poohing some of the arguments advanced in this thread against FPAF. 'there are specific rules which determine when BR is or is not out at 1st base [6.05(j), 6.09(b)cmt, 7.08(a)(2), 7.08(c), 7.08(j), 7.10(c), for instance.]　 Please note that none of these rules as they apply to the BR/1st play refers to it as a "force play". ' True, but the argument loses its vitality by the counter example: 6.05 A runner is out when (l) An infielder　intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and third base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases. Here the author has gone to the trouble of enumerating all possible configurations which would lead to a baserunner being involved in a force play, when he could have more economically written" ...drive resulting in a force play at any base before two..." Of course it could be that the author, fully understanding that there is a force play at first, couldn't use the economical form without changing the meaning. Just kidding! Actually, from what I can see, the OBR usually enumerates. See for example the definition of an infield fly. BTW, 7.02 [7.01 actually] may help you understand why the play @ 1st is not a force per 2.00. Hint: does the Batter have the right to stay @ Home Plate "until forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base"? 7.01 refers to a runner who acquires the right to a base. In my opinion, the batter has the right to home, and loses the right when he becomes a runner because his time at bat has ended. The batter-runner (who is always a runner) has no opportunity to acquire home. As an aside, a scoring runner does not acquire home either-- he ceases to be a runner. Also, see 7.08(i)cmt [hint: if BR "retreats" to the plate and stands thereon, can he be put out by tagging him?]. 7.08(i) cmt is simply not relevant. It is a clarification of the "travesty" rule, showing that not every instance of running the bases in reverse is a travesty. If you doubt the limited scope, consider R1 and B/R singles. Can R1 return to 1st and be protected from being put out? Not while B/R is occupying first -- in contradiction to the cmt. Also, there is no legitimate reason for any runner to attempt to return to home, so he can't be decoyed there. 　Any attempt by a runner to return to home (after reaching first) is a travesty. Carter, you may feel this post is directed against you, but it really isn't. In fact, I appreciate that you took the trouble to write out the case against FPAP. In many instances, I used your words, but I believe that they are mostly representative of the opinions of the other posters here whose opinions and writing skill I respect. Dave
|
|
Wed Aug 11, 2004, 07:50am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave:
First, welcome to the battle! Don't worry that I might feel you have directed your comments "at" me: unlike some others, I am not so sensitive a plant as to wilt if someone flames in my vicinity [which, actually, you did not]. On to substance: You are right, it is possible to read 2.00 "Double play" in a way that supports the notion that FPAF is a "force". I have not previously dumped on that notion, although it clearly is one of the 406 [made-up #] "known errors" in the ORB. Why is it an error? Because there is a separate, specific rule that makes BR out at 1st if the base is tagged; thus the PAF does not have to be a FPAF for the example of a "reverse DP" [which is one of the WORST pieces of writing in the whole ORB] in the defn. of DP to be correct. My "hints" were directed at focusing the attention on the last question I asked: "tell me, does BR have a 'right to occupy' Home, which he can lose by reason of another runner gaining title to that base?"; which is tied into the book defn of a "Force play". [BTW; thanks for pointing out my proofreading error, I did mean 7.01, not 7.02] The "hint" for 7.08(i)cmt is relevent to the very issue that seems to excite the FPAF debate: BR touches 1st ["an unoccupied base"] and the retreats to home. Now it should be obvious to everyone that BR can be put out if he is tagged ANYWHERE off 1stB in this sitch, including standing stock still on Home. [In fact, there is an AO in the BRD (don't have time to look it up right now) which holds that if BR retreats and actually touches or goes past Home, he is out even if NOT tagged] Reason why this is important: the same is not necessarily true for a "force" at any base other than 1st. 7.08(i)cmt says [or at least seems to say] that the "forced" runner is NOT out if tagged while standing on the base to which he "retreated". No?, you say?? Check out 7.03: "if, while the ball is alive, two runners are touching a base, THE FOLLOWING RUNNER shall be out when tagged. The preceeding runner is entitled to the base." Now, by separate rule, if a runner is forced to 2d, touches same and then retreats to and stands on 1st, along w/ BR, "the force is reinstated" and the runner may be put out by tagging 2nd base. However, by 7.03, if the defense chooses to tag BR first [w/ 2 on 1stB]: BR is out! I tend to suspect that 7.03/7.08(i)cmt together create one of the 406 "known errors", and even if not, nobody is likely to argue w/ you if you call the idiot "forced" runner out when he is tagged while jostling his BRunning brother for space at 1st after retreating from 2nd. In fact, the idiot is the one everybody expects to be out in this sitch, and using HHH's "give 'em what they expect" philosophy, you probably AVOID an argument by calling this runner out, even if the rules might be capable of a reading where this would be wrong. The point of my "hints", recall, was to direct attention to the circumstances which demonstrate that the BR to 1st play CANNOT meet the definition of a "Force play". Recall that I acknowledge that it is customary, and even useful, at times to regard this as a "force" {and as we have seen, the defn. of "Double play" is one such instance enshrined in the rule book}, and most of the time, it makes no difference if you get this "wrong": force or no, BR is STILL out - if not by "force", then by specific rule that has the same result as the play being a "force". Recall further, however, that there are circumstances where the issue of "is it [ACTUALLY] a force" makes a difference, namely: if BR touches 1stB safely, but then retreats and is tagged off base do runs score; and must BR be tagged in this sitch, or will tagging 1stB do the job ? We've brought greymule around on this one, I hope we've got you, also. If not, feel free to continue to argue with me, quoting my words back to me if you feel you can thereby demonstrate a flaw in my reasoning. As long as you don't use the "It IS, it JUST IS!" line of "logic" exhibited by some; or ask me to "give a rules citation" I've already given: I promise not to call you names. Deal? --Carter [Edited by cbfoulds on Aug 11th, 2004 at 09:45 AM]
|
|
Wed Aug 11, 2004, 02:07pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Using 7.01 to argue that the runner has aquired or occupies home base is illogical and wrong. The rule states that a runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he TOUCHES IT before he is out.
Since the BR does not typically ever touch home base, he is not occupying or has not aquired home base. While the definition of a Force Play does have a long comment, it is in regards to the force being removed. There are two explanations, one about the force being removed during a play and one clarifying that an out for a runner failing to retouch after a caught fly ball is not a force out. There is nothing wrong with the way the rule is written. The comments only clarify the how the force can be removed and what is specifically should not be treated as a force play. There is also rules which indicate that the runner at first is put out, not forced. APPROVED RULING OF 7.08 (a). APPROVED RULING: When a batter becomes a runner on third strike not caught, and starts for his bench or position, he may advance to first base at any time before he enters the bench. TO PUT HIM OUT, the defense must tag him or first base before he touches first base. While there may be errors in the rules, I would tend to stick with the definition first and look at the various references second. Since the various references both support and contradict the definition, I am sticking with what the definition says, since it is, of course, the definition. Can you go wrong using the definition to define a rule?
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
|
|
Wed Aug 11, 2004, 02:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whoa, K!
Don't think either Dave or I argue that 7.01 gives Batter a "right to occupy" home. I used the rule to help demonstrate that BR never has a "right to occupy" [as used in the 2.00 defn of "Force Play"]~ answer to my Hint: question is (obviously) No. Dave was arguing that 7.01 is unhelpful, but that Batter has a "right to" home that he loses [thus being "forced"] upon becoming a BR. As for the issue of using the plain meaning of the words and definition(s) actually printed in the book; I think you know from another thread that I am generally in sympathy with that approach: why "interpret" when you have perfectly adequate answers in what is written in black and white? Nevertheless, we know that there are some Official Interp.s and Authoritative Opinions that at least twist the [relatively] plain language of the written rule rather badly. This fact and practice, along with a too-casual reliance on 9.01(c) is where IMO some folk start to come unglued. Folks don't like the feeling of being told "everything you know is wrong". So, when confronted by the assertion that the hands are not part of the bat, a batted ball that hits the plate is not a foul ball, ties do not go to the runner, and the play on the BR at first is not a "Force play": this natural human impulse to defend what you "know" to be true leads to some pretty creative "interpretations" in support of what they believe to be "common sense". They decide that the rules are ambiguous, or in conflict, or just don't "specifically cover" this sitch, so here comes 9.01(c) and I use my "common sense", and what I always believed to be the rule, turns out to be the rul(ing)!
|
|
Wed Aug 11, 2004, 04:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What I should have said was that "Using 7.01 to argue that the runner has aquired or occupies home base is illogical and wrong. The rule states that a runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he TOUCHES IT before he is out.
I quotes Dave as saying..."In my opinion, the batter has the right to home, and loses the right when he becomes a runner because his time at bat has ended." In any event, I think the batter has a right to be in the batters box, the rules state that he has to be there if he wants to legally contact the ball. The batter has to put the ball in play before he can attempt to reach first. Only when he becomes a runner, BR, does he aquire the right to occupy any base and thus force a runner on first, etc... That aside, I agree with all of your last post.
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
|
|
Thu Aug 12, 2004, 12:31am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Well, not just possible. Actually there is no other way to read it. Either the PAF is a force or the definition of a reverse DP is in error. (The example could also be wrong, but I assume we agree that the example itself is OK.) I have not previously dumped on that notion, although it clearly is one of the 406 [made-up #] "known errors" in the ORB. Ah ha! We have a controversy! Some time ago, Rich Fronheiser said there are 456 "known erors." I can only hope that he spelled it "erors" on purpose. Why is it an error? Because there is a separate, specific rule that makes BR out at 1st if the base is tagged; thus the PAF does not have to be a FPAF for the example of a "reverse DP" [which is one of the WORST pieces of writing in the whole ORB] in the defn. of DP to be correct. The example is correct whether a PAF is a force or not. This line of reasoning reduces to "it isn't a force because its not." We would need some other reason to conclude there isn't a force and that therefore the definition is in error. I tend to suspect that 7.03/7.08(i)cmt together create one of the 406 "known errors", and even if not, nobody is likely to argue w/ you if you call the idiot "forced" runner out when he is tagged while jostling his BRunning brother for space at 1st after retreating from 2nd. I assumed that you had followed the thread revolving around 3 runners standing on third base. In that thread, and in a similar thread at umpire.org, "everybody" agreed that a trailing forced runner is safe from put out. So I didn't bother to explain 7.03 is a known error. Let me also point out that 7.03 conflicts pretty strongly with 7.01. The point of my "hints", recall, was to direct attention to the circumstances which demonstrate that the BR to 1st play CANNOT meet the definition of a "Force play". Recall that I acknowledge that it is customary, and even useful, at times to regard this as a "force" {and as we have seen, the defn. of "Double play" is one such instance enshrined in the rule book}, and most of the time, it makes no difference if you get this "wrong": force or no, BR is STILL out - if not by "force", then by specific rule that has the same result as the play being a "force". Recall further, however, that there are circumstances where the issue of "is it [ACTUALLY] a force" makes a difference, namely: if BR touches 1stB safely, but then retreats and is tagged off base do runs score; and must BR be tagged in this sitch, or will tagging 1stB do the job ? We've brought greymule around on this one, I hope we've got you, also. Let me make clear immediately that I think the BR must be tagged in this situation. Of course this means that runs do score. I do differ from the opinion of many in the following respect: I think BR must be tagged even if an edict were issued declaring the POF is a force. My reasoning is that there is no baseball reason for any runner who has safely reached base to return to home. Furthermore, I interpret the word "retreat" in 7.08(e) to mean attempting to return to a safe haven. So the BR might decide to return to home (probably because he thinks he hit a foul ball) but he isn't retreating, and 7.08(e) doesn't apply. Similarily, if R1 is forced to and reaches 2nd, but then falls off the bag toward 1st, I don't think the force is reinstated: there was no intent to reach a safe haven. By the way, it is interesting to consider why baseball reinstates the force. I speculate that a reason is to avoid a firedrill which could arise on a high flyball. Play: R1 and batter hits a dome scraper to left on a hit and run play. R1 probably has time to touch 2nd, and then return to half way point between 1st and 2nd. Absent the reinstated force rule, if the fly falls, R1 gains an advantage at second by this manuever since he would have to be tagged. The rule reduces the probability of controversy-- did R1 really reach and touch 2nd? Dave
|
|
Thu Aug 12, 2004, 01:04am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix
(snip) There is nothing wrong with the way the (Force Play) rule is written. The comments only clarify the how the force can be removed and what is specifically should not be treated as a force play. Nothing wrong with it? I hope you mean that you think it is adequate, not that it is perfect. However, let me explain one reason why I think it is inadequate. A Force Play is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner. This defn identifies the event that causes a force play (batter becomes a runner,) but doesn't describe which runners or configurations of runners are affected and lose their right to occupy. And 7.08(e), which contains further info about a force play-- some of which should be in the defn--doesn't describe the configuration of runners either. So try this situation: R2 and BR hits safely. Is R2 in a force play? Neither the definition or the rule tells us. Of course any 8 year old knows the answer, but the point of having rules and definitions is to codify and make definite the details of the game. Dave
|
|
Thu Aug 12, 2004, 04:05am
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Reed
Quote:
Quote:
The DEFINITION of a "reverse force double play" is OK [actually, a little weird, since I can't find any other use of the term which would require that it be defined]: it is the example that is "wrong" [in implying that PAF=F], for the reason I've outlined: PAF not force 'cause doesn't fit 2.00 "Force Play", and BR out @ 1B by 6.05(j), not by 7.08(e). The example is "ok" only insofar as everybody is out as described. Never assume. Quote:
I like to think he did. I did not have Rich's # handy when I wrote: he is a General Authority, so I will confess I was mistaken; it's 456 "known erors". Quote:
Nah: "it's not a force 'cause (A) the defn. of "Force play" says it's not; and (B) if it was a "force" there would be no need for 6.05(j)~ 7.08(e) would take care of it." Plus remember that 2.00 "Double play " is not purporting to define or modify the defn of Force play- it uses the PAF to exemplify "reverse force double play", no-one knows why - the "rule" in this section [the definition] can be/ is correct, even though the "example" is FUBAR. Have I mentioned that this section is one of the WORST pieces of writing in the Book? Quote:
I followed the thread here; don't recall that I weighed in. If I had, my input would have been similar to the following: I have 3 runners on one base; two of 'em are gonna be out if tagged. If we take [going CtrClockwise] R3, R2, R1 at TOP; now R3A, B, & C, respectively: B is the only one who is where he is supposed to be [having been forced off 2d]. However, by rule [7.03 - and yes, that is a conflict w/ 7.01: another "known eror"], R3A is the one entitled to the base; so if the defense tags C [he's a dead duck, regardless] and B, technically B is out. However, A is one of the dummies who made the mess, so if the defense tags all 3 [which I'm expecting they will], I'm calling A & C out - that's who everyone EXPECTS to be out, and I really don't care, as long as 2 go back to the dugout. In fact, if the offensive coach wants to argue about which runners are toast, I'll tell him "you pick 'em: take 2 with you". Quote:
As long as I have you agreeing that BR has to be tagged if he touches 1B and then "retreats" [OK, "inexplicably moseys"] back toward Home; and agreeing that there is no "reinstated Force", so runs score; then I no longer need to argue with you - us lawyers are comfortable with the idea of "right for the wrong reason" - and we would get along fine on the field in deciding how to rule on one of these screwy sitchs. My only concern is that, by adhereing to the FPAF heresy, you give aid and comfort to those who want to "reinstate" the [IMO] non-existent "force" on the PAF, resulting in an out if the base is tagged, instead of the runner, and runs don't score if this is 3rd out. Unfortunately, I have to occasionally deal w/ hardhead idiot partners who have been known to respond to being shown that they made the wrong call thru a black-and-white citation to the rule book with the words: "the Book is wrong." [not one of the 456 "erors"; the book plainly says black, HHIP rules white] Makes me cranky, sometimes, about rules & interpretations. Good news for me is, however junior I may be on this Board, I am way senior to the known HHI's in my assn. I long ago gave up trying to figure out WHY the various Rules Committees wrote what, and the way, they did/ do. Makes my head hurt. --Carter [Edited by cbfoulds on Aug 12th, 2004 at 09:10 AM]
|
|
Thu Aug 12, 2004, 10:50am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you agree that BR must be tagged and runs score in the PAF/"Retreat toward Home"/ tagged 3d out scenario, you must necessarily accept that the PAF is NOT a FPAF. See: 7.08(e) - "...if the forced runner, after touching the next base, retreats ... the force play is reinstated, and [runner can be] put out if the defense tags the base to which he is forced." See also: 7.12 - no runs score if 3d out is a force play. Bottom line: ain't no rule that "removes the force" on PAF when BR touches & goes back down the baseline toward his previous upright position [home plate]; so if'n PAF=F, when he backs up, it's still a force and, tag him or the base, no runs score. Fortunately, we have 2.00 "Force Play" and 6.05(j), from which we can determine that PAF is not F, even though ["1st time by"] it looks like a force 'cause BR is out if base is tagged before he arrives. SOOoo ... if BR touches and retraces his path, he must be tagged and runs crossing the plate before BR is tagged do, indeed score, neither of which can be true if PAF=F. As some of my crazier [& drunker] college buddies used to say to conclude typically convoluted college-buddy arguments: F#(%wad, I win! [Never argue w/ a lawyer: it only makes your head hurt, and the lawyer enjoys it] Umpirically; --Carter
|
|
Fri Aug 13, 2004, 12:06am
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I see you've claimed victory. There is a rule (I just made it up) that you can't claim victory when your trumping argument was anticipated and rebutted in a previous post! Actually, as you may recall, my original purpose was to show that one need not be idiotic or illogical to make an argument for FPAF. We've been able to discuss FPAF through several exchanges without rancor. I infer that you will concede that limited original purpose. Dave
|
|
Fri Aug 13, 2004, 04:35am
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Problem w/ your explanation is that it is a variation [more intelligent, perhaps, but definitely out of the same stable] on "IT JUST IS" ["is NOT", in this case]. Can you cite me to any rule, OFF.INTERP., A/O, or Higher/ General Authority which supports the notion that "retreats", as and when used in 7.08(e), doesn't include BR's inexplicable retrograde movement on the base path after touching 1st? I didn't think so. That makes it your opinion: everyone has 'em, just like ...(well, you know..); however, it is a bit of a stretch to claim that you have made a logical, reasoned argument that X is true, since, in your opinion, Y is true. What is your authority [as us legals like to say] for your opinion or assertion? Quote:
Quote:
Actually, you did not have to make up the rule, nor invoke 9.01(c) to make the ruling. F###wad, I win! is derived from the J. William Fullbright Protocol for Terminating Intractable Outdoor Debates Involving Small Arms and Heavy Ordinance ["Declare victory, and go home."]. As such, it may be invoked only where there are no remaining issues which can be authoritatively resolved, and the discussion have been reduced to the level of "Is! Isn't!! My cannon is bigger!! ..." [you get the picture]. So, like I said, cite me an authority. Otherwise, I am allowed to claim victory [if you truly were arguing FPAF, and not merely trying to advance an arguably logical basis for the belief], based on your agreement that "BR must be tagged/ runs score" in the sitch we are discussing; which cannot be true if FPAF is true. Quote:
I concede that we have exchanged views without rancor: this is easy when neither party takes every trifling comment as a personal affront and approaches the debate with an open [and, dare I say, agile] mind, reinforced by a sense of humor more robust than their sense of self-importance. However, it is still possible for reasonably intelligent logical folk to make the same arguments, even illogical arguments, as hardhead idiots. I continue to stand by my statement that I have yet to encounter a logical argument for PAF=F, although I certainly concede to you a reasonable defense of the closest thing to a logical argument that there is [the "reverse force DP" example] for the FPAF proposition. Under our agreed-upon rules of engagement, that means I am not allowed to call you names: I trust you will agree that I have obeyed that rule. --Carter [Edited by cbfoulds on Aug 13th, 2004 at 05:40 AM]
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
