"Force" redux

[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

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."[/B]

Read the passage just following the part of my previous message that you quote. It explains why I think 7.08(e) would not be applicable to a FPAF.

See also: 7.12 - no runs score if 3d out is a force play. [/B]

You've got me baffled here; 7.12 isn't related to this discussion in any way.

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."

I understand A, but B is not a credible reason. 6.05 enumerates nearly every way a batter may be put out. Several of these ways are specified elsewhere, and no inference can be drawn from the partial redundancy of 6.05(j) and 7.08(e). Your reasoning would imply that it is an error to include 6.05(g) (batter is out if a fair ball touches him...) since 7.08(f) would take care of it.


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