Accidental appeal and mechanics question.

[GarthB]

He also said that his information on the "revised" NF case was that the "accidental appeal" was back in.


He is wrong.

[Gmoore]

I was under the impression this is what a message board was for to dicuss and learn??

2-29-3 tells us what a force PLAY is--correct?

2-24-1 tells us what a force out is---correct?

And please dont cop an attitude you can explain your version and i will listen please show me the same respect.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Gmoore
I was under the impression this is what a message board was for to dicuss and learn??

2-29-3 tells us what a force PLAY is--correct?

2-24-1 tells us what a force out is---correct?

And please dont cop an attitude you can explain your version and i will listen please show me the same respect.

Gmoore:
This has been thrashed to death here & elsewhere: thus the "attitude".

Your point: "2-24-1 tells us what a force out is---correct?" is useless, as the definition of force PLAY [2-29-3] is the only place where the rule book tells us who is "forced to advance". BR is not "forced to advance" per 2-29-3. BR cannot be a "force out" before reaching 1st. QED.

Ain't "my version": it's what's in the Rule Book. The Rule is the same whether you are speaking FED or OBR.

BR isn't "forced" at 1st [but you will still call the usual play correctly if you can't bring yourself to accept this: you'll only booger the TWP's, only umpires will care, and not many of them.].

[Bob Lyle]

Originally posted by Gmoore
I was under the impression this is what a message board was for to dicuss and learn??

You're suffering from a delusion. The purpose of the message board in for minor league and college umpires to strut their stuff and put down umpires who do little league.

It's an ego thing. You're obviously a little league umpire if you don't understand.

[Gmoore]

Guess I should close my account here to make room ..........
ROTFLMAO-- Which are you?

[Tim C]

Bob this is a surprise . . .

I have not seen this attitude in you before.

Odd, just odd.

Just for the "real record" as listed in an early post this whole discussion is about an error in the book.

It will eventually be edited.

Lots of crap made by an error -- I guess I know how pitchers might feel now.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
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.

Would you be so kind as to describe the third world play that illustrates the flaw in saying the batter runner is forced to 1B?

If I quoted Jim Evans making reference to the batter runner being "forced" to 1B, would you then consider Mr. Evans to be "ignorant" of the rules?

Have you considered that the whole "batter runner is/isn't forced to 1B" debate might just be an issue of meaningless semantics, simply a "how many umpires can dance on the head of a pin" debate?

Or, maybe it's not. What's the play scenario that demonstrates the difference?

[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

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.

[/B]

I don't know about NFHS rules, but in case you intend this statement to apply to OBR also, I'd like to demur. A batter-runner becomes a runner as soon as his time at bat has ended, not when he reaches 1st.
From Definitions: A Runner is an offensive player who is advancing toward, or touching, or returning to any base.
6.09 The batter becomes a runner when-- (a) he hits a fair ball; [note that (b)...(h) enumerate other ways to become a runner.] Section 7, especially 7.05, 7.08, and 7.09, contains numerous references which confirm that B/R is a runner.
The batter-runner does indeed have special privileges and responsibilities, but at least in OBR he is also a runner.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Would you be so kind as to describe the third world play that illustrates the flaw in saying the batter runner is forced to 1B?

If I quoted Jim Evans making reference to the batter runner being "forced" to 1B, would you then consider Mr. Evans to be "ignorant" of the rules?

Have you considered that the whole "batter runner is/isn't forced to 1B" debate might just be an issue of meaningless semantics, simply a "how many umpires can dance on the head of a pin" debate?

Or, maybe it's not. What's the play scenario that demonstrates the difference?

And if I quote J/R that he's NOT forced ...?

Like I've written [twice]: only umpires will know, few of them will care. The vast majority of the time, you bet, meaningless semantics. Occasionally, the semantics will get you going in the wrong direction. The FED casebook "error", seemingly re-instating accidental appeals, notwithstanding a clear statement still in the Rule Book, [which is what started this thread] is IMHO, one of 'em ['tho being "forced" seems irrelevent to the case ruling, the language is in there].

As for a TWP where it matters, some months ago, we thrashed the bejesus out of one on this very board: if memory serves, you were "there". To wit:

B gets a hit, makes it to 1st & touches the base safely; for some unknowable reason, he "retreats" back toward, but not all the way to home. Since there is no "force" on BR @ 1st, therefore no "force" to be "reinstated", IN THIS SITCH, BR must be tagged on his person to be out - tagging the base won't do. Furthermore, [and perhaps the only place where it could actually matter] a run scoring from third before BR is out in these circumstances would score, even if the tag [after the touch & retreat] was the 3d out. [3d out recorded on BR AFTER he touches 1st base]

There may be others; they are all TWP's, I've personally never witnessed one where it makes the slightest difference, except semanticly, which I guess includes simply getting the rule right. I'd almost bet that Evans and Roeder haven't [seen an actual play in a game where it makes a difference], either; and their experience is, obviously, far broader than mine.

Dave:
OK, I should have included the words: "..for the purposes of this {"force play"} rule..."; my point was [is] that the BR is a special critter for several rules-related differences from a regular runner - this is one of them. The FED rule indicates that the term runner generically includes 2 kinds of players: the BR and ..any runner who occupies a base. Which references my second bullet: the BR is not "forced" from a base he "occupies", a requirement of a force play.

[Edited by cbfoulds on Mar 5th, 2005 at 05:27 AM]

[jicecone]

Gentlemen, I was the one that broke open this cloud. My intention was not to dicuss wether the batter-runner is forced to first or not, because we know that as defined by the rules, he is not. Nor is 8.2.3 correct, because thats wrong too.

We have two authoritative sources talking about something that we know is wrong and not true. Is BRD just quoting NHFS or is there something there I was missing.

That was the POINT I was making.

[Bob Lyle]

Originally posted by Tim C
Bob this is a surprise . . .

I have not seen this attitude in you before.

You must have missed my flame wars with the egotist known as Windbag.

For the record, I do all levels of baseball, 7 or 8 college games a year (mostly D3) and 4 or 5 little league games a year. The other 100 or so are in between.

[Tim C]

Let me get this straight:

If Evans says one thing, and Roder says another who trumps whom?

Not a very tough call:

Roder once published that a pitch that bounces BEFORE a batter swings and tips it, that the ball COULD NOT BE CAUGHT for a foul tip.

Pretty strange. If the same pitch could be hit for a home run why not a foul tip.

Evans set him straight.

While neither Evans not Roder are official in their interpretations I think it is pretty obvious that Evans's work carries much more weight.

Let's thank a FED missprint for this entire thread.

[greymule]

The play where the BR touches 1B and then "retreats" toward home but still has to be tagged is the only play can think of where the out at 1B is not exactly the same as a force at another base.

Maybe there are other examples. Actually, I wish I knew a couple more, so I could better explain to people why the out at 1B is technically not a force.

Obviously, the rules-makers had some reason for specifically excluding the out at 1B from the category of force play.

Of course, people who know better still routinely call it a force out, but that's only because there's no short term for "the BR is put out before reaching 1B."

[cbfoulds]

Tim:

Let me put this on the record- I have the highest regard for Jim Evans & his interpretive expertise.

My "day job" makes me quite accustomed to finding, evaluating, relying upon and distinguishing various types of authority, precedent, and evidence.

All other things being equal, I believe I would be most likely to agree with his interpretation, where [if] he and J/R conflict.

The principal inequality that exists at present, is that, while Evans' work is unavailable to me, Roeder's is readily accessible, sitting on my desktop as I write.


When someone offers to demonstrate Jim Evans "making reference" to a sitch, I have a couple problems accepting the authority. The first is that I am unable to go read the citation myself. And what comes before and after it. Context is everything. As the current FED boo-boo demonstrates, it is possible to "make reference" to BRFAF and be, not authoritative, but only sloppy/ careless.

The second is that I am wholy dependent upon the accuracy and veracity of the citing individual. Casting no aspersions on anyone posting in this thread, but we have certainly noticed that there are those posting on various umpiring boards who are not above mis-stating a reference to support their point.

Thus, until Jim Evans publishes a version of his JEA for the unwashed masses, the J/R is, for most of us, THE premier available authority for OBR rules interpretation. Here's hoping that the recently-floated possibility of a "mass-market" JEA [at whatever price ] becomes a reality in the near future.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Illini_Ref
I agree gordon, but the casebook says that if the fielder catches the ball off the base and the runner misses the base, the fielder can "casually" step on the base to record the out. Sounds like an accidental appeal. The case is listed as "revised" so I am unclear just what the NF is saying to us.

Ever since FED tried to drop the "accidental appeal", they've been trying to change this play to get it right. I think they still need to work at it.

My advice (and it's just my opinion) is to ignore this specific case play and rely on 8.4.2B instead. It's nearly the same play, except the missed base is second (by a forced R1) and a specific, intentional, appeal is needed. IMHO, this play demonstrates teh "one call" that FED wants us to make.