|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 11:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe, it was not to long ago that there was a pretty good discussion about the play at first, NOT being a "force play."
At the time I walked away believing that there could not be a force play at first. Now, I am truly confused??????!!!!!! 
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 11:51am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am reasonably sure that a BR going to first is NOT a force. If you read about ascoring, a run does not count if the third out is a result of a force out OR if the third out is a batter being put out before he reaches first base. If it was a force there would be no need to separate the two would there?
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 12:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 12:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
BR hits a ball off the fence, misses 1B, touches 2B, and on the slide at 3B, the tag is a little late. "Safe!" says the ump, and then, "Out!" for missing 1B.
I think you're confusing an accidental appeal with the No-appeal-ump-calls-out of old. I'm aware that the old "no appeal needed" rule went by the boards a few years ago. The above play was indeed possible under the accidental appeal play. If you remember, people were wondering what the mechanic would be. This play was also possible: Abel on 1B. Baker singles to right. Abel misses 2B and goes to 3B. F4, holding the ball, kicks dirt off 2B before throwing to ball to the mound. Abel is out on the accidental appeal at 2B. The accidental appeal could be either a tag of the base or a tag of the runner. Continuing action seemed not to play a part in the accidental appeal. (Does Fed even recognize continuing action?) Some people were even positing that only a pitch could "break the spell." Example: Abel doubles but misses 1B. With Baker at bat but before a pitch, F1 tries to pick Abel off 2B. Abel is safe, but F6 tags him. Out on the accidental appeal. I don't think anyone was claiming that call should be made, but the rule was not clear about when the accidental appeal was no longer possible. I suspect most would have ended the possibility when the ball got back to the mound. [Edited by greymule on Mar 4th, 2005 at 12:33 PM]
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 12:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
A force out is defined as:
A force out is a putout during which a runner who is being forced to advance is tagged out or is put out by a fielder who holds the ball while touching the base toward which the forced runner is advancing. reading that how can a runner going to first not be a force out?
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 12:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
. . . how can a runner going to first not be a force out?
The batter-runner runs to 1B. The BR is technically not a runner. Believe it. The BR at 1B is not a force play, even though 99% of the time it might as well be.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 12:52pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
So our YOU saying, that the batter-runner is forced to first because by his own action, he is now a runner and no longer a batter?????? I'm not buying it.
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 12:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
speaking NFHS There are so many different codes and i think Illni ref is talking NFHS
Greymule I am not saying your wrong but please give me a example [Edited by Gmoore on Mar 4th, 2005 at 01:02 PM]
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 01:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Refer to 9-1-1 and you'll see that BR is treated separately as respect to a runner being forced. This being the case BR is not "forced" at first. The net effect as it concerns a run being scored is that they are treated the same. Incidently this is a moot point as it pertains to this thread.
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 01:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
2-24-1 is defination of force out 9-1-1 is how a team scores with exceptions on how a run is not scored 2-7-3 A batter-runner is a player who has finished a time at bat until he is out out or until playing action ends
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 01:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
9-1-1 Makes a point of illustrating that a run cannot score if the third out were a result of a force AND that a run cannot score if BR is put out at first. If the out at first was a force out as per definition there would be no need for this rule. Ergo BR cannot be a "force out". Although they are treated the same. Nowhere in 2-24-1 is BR ever mentioned. It refers specifically to runner(s) being forced to advance. I grant you that most people think the out at first is a force out and you can also if you like since it's treated the same as a force out, however you want to look at it, it really has nothing to do with this thread.
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 01:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe that the casebook is simply a misprint. As we all know when FED changes a rule it always screws up somewhere in the edit of either rulebook or the casebook. It takes two to three years to work all the bugs out. As I remember the asterick means a change but the edit doen't reflect it. I can't find last year's casebook but if someone does I feel certain this is what happened.
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 02:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe that the casebook is simply a misprint.
This may well be true. Probably an artifact that wasn't deleted. It happens all the time. Incidentally, a more accurate term for "accidental appeal" would have ben "accidental force" play. Unfortunately, to be fully precise, we would have had to call it the "accidental force or BR out before touching 1B play."
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 06:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I spoke to a friend of mine on the phone today regarding this rule. He is a very good umpire with College World Series experience who is also well versed in NF rules. I respect his interpretation.
His take was this. Any time you have a PLAY at a base you need to make a call. If the fielder did not touch the base on a force, or the fielder missed the tag on a tag play, you HAVE to signal safe even if the runner missed the base. Only have a "no signal" if there is no PLAY on the runner. He also said that his information on the "revised" NF case was that the "accidental appeal" was back in. Just relaying what he told me.
|
|
Fri Mar 04, 2005, 06:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
2-29-3:A force play is a play in which a runner ... The batter is not a runner until he reaches 1st base. Once he stops being the batter, he becomes the batter-runner, a special critter. ...loses his right to occupy the base he occupies ... the batter has no "right to occupy" home; and, indeed, never "occupies" home at all. ...and is forced to advance because the batter becomes a batter runner. Now, how can the Batter be "forced to advance because the batter becomes a batter-runner"? Kind of a tautology, yes? Batter is forced .. because he's forced .. by his becoming a BR. AIN'T NO FORCE ON BR @ 1st. Not that it makes a bit of difference, since in all but the rareset TWP, you can pretend you don't know this and officiate the play like it WAS a "force". You can even SAY that BR is forced at 1st, and only umpires will know that you are being ignorant; and most of them won't care. Of course, when the TWP actually happens in front of you, you'll blow the ruling; but, again, only umpires will know. Now, PLEASE, can we stop having folk constantly posting "what rule says that BR isn't forced?" PLLEEAASSSSEEEEEE?????? [Edited by cbfoulds on Mar 4th, 2005 at 06:37 PM]
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
