I ain't letting it go

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by rex
Rule 4.09(b) is enough. It tells me the B/R has got to run it out. It tells me the penalty if he doesn’t.

Ok, Rex, cool and dispassionate now. OBR 4.09(b) is NOT enough, believe me. Here is why:

1. It only covers a situation in which "the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in the the last half of an extra inning.." OTOH, the PBUC ruling can occur following ANY 3rd out of any half inning, including the first!

2. It only covers a situation "with bases full which forces the runner on third on third to advance..." OTOH, the PBUC ruling can occur on plays where the bases are NOT full, the runner from 3rd is NOT forced to advance, and where the 3rd out is the result of a time play.

3. It only covers a situation where "the umpire shall not declare the game ended until ... the batter-runner has touched first base." OTOH, the PBUC ruling does NOT require the play to occur in a game ending situation.

Now, Rex, the reason that the batter-runner is required to advance to and touch first base when the game winning run is forced home from 3rd base is because of the Casebook Comment following OBR 6.08(a). This establishes that other runners are NOT forced to advance, following an award, until the batter-runner reaches and touches 1st base. So, it makes sense in a bases loaded force situation that the winning run from 3rd cannot be forced home until the batter-runner reaches and touches 1st base. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the PBUC ruling, which deals with a non-appeal 4th out in live-ball action following a batted ball.

The PENALTY following OBR 4.09(b) applies only where there are TWO outs, not THREE! The exact wording is, "If, with two out, the batter-runner refuses to advance to and touch first base..." It cannot therefore apply with THREE outs, and in any case the PBUC ruling was not based on a play in which the batter-runner REFUSES to advance - he was instead prevented from doing so by injury!

The reason that OBR 4.09(b) exists is to facilitate the legal scoring of a game ending run where the R3 is forced to advance by an award to the batter-runner. The Penalty only exists to give the umpire a way to resolve a refusal by the batter-runner to formalise that score by touching 1st base. It has NO BEARING on the PBUC decision whatsoever! It does NOT set a precedent that obligates the batter-runner to advance to and touch first base AFTER a 3rd out has been made! There is NOTHING but the PBUC ruling that does that!

Now you may call that response "unloosing your Wrath", but I'd call it a simple sequence of cold, hard facts that clearly establish that your conclusion is fatally flawed. Don't be bothered by that. I have drawn conclusions that were later proven to be flawed, too, and I survived!

As to establishing whether the batter runner is "forced" to advance, you need only raise your eyes to the level of OBR 4.09(a)Exception. If the batter-runner is truly "forced" to advance, why then is Exception(1) even necessary? Couldn't it be dispensed with, considering outs on the batter-runner would then be covered under Exception (2)? Where is the logic in discriminating between the two, if they are the same?

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 29th, 2001 at 01:36 AM]

[umpyre007]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Originally posted by umpyre007

Say, isn't "rath" a brand of processed meat or something? I know "rathe" describes a "fruit" that ripens early. I hope you aren't making comments about my masculinity.

You know, I thought you were just being cute with "umpyre" when in fact you just can't spell.

LOL.

Perhaps old englush teecher shood concentrate on hiz own posts and the numerous spell errars in dem. Physician heal thyself.

[umpyre007]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DDonnelly19

You apparently neglected to read one of Warren's previous posts; when I asked him whether his personal opinions on the issue would affect the way he calls it on the field,.....

Problem is that Willson overestimates his importance. He makes one measly statement that he WOULD follow PBUC interpretations and then spends countless bandwidth and wordiness on tearing it down. This misleads. He has hashed this SAME issue before on McGriff's and it lead to his mental instability.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by umpyre007
Perhaps old englush teecher shood concentrate on hiz own posts and the numerous spell errars in dem. Physician heal thyself.

The above is quite typical of your retorts, even when you were a member of UT.

LOL

When I post something with the word "manaul" in it, that's my arthritic fingers simply failing to type what I know. When you write about someone's "rath," that's a misspelling. And when you can't get the distinction between "it's" and "its," that's just ignorance.

You know, someone said "The medium is the massage." He certainly seemed familiar with your "work." No, "work" is a generous term for what you write. A better description would be "haiku."

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Warren Willson


As to establishing whether the batter runner is "forced" to advance, you need only raise your eyes to the level of OBR 4.09(a)Exception. If the batter-runner is truly "forced" to advance, why then is Exception(1) even necessary? Couldn't it be dispensed with, considering outs on the batter-runner would then be covered under Exception (2)? Where is the logic in discriminating between the two, if they are the same?

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 29th, 2001 at 01:36 AM]

Rex,

Don't raise your eyes too high, you may start seeing new clothes that really aren't there. It must be the strain of how high one must s-t-r-e-t-c-h to see some things.

__________________________________________________ _________

I think it is obvious that if one accepts that the game requires a BR to advance to first base, then all of the following make sense:

1) that the PBUC makes BR finish out the play which began with only 2 out thereby requiring BR to advance to first base. This is a proven with their recent ruling.

2) that the Fed and J/R recognize the 4th advantageous out and thereby requiring that the BR must advance to first base

3) that the rules can be read (not by Childress & Willson, but by others) that the BR need advance to first base

4) that the Fed rulebook in chapter 8 refers to a BR being forced to first base

5) that the Fed casebook requires BR to advance to first base

6) that JEA refers to BR being forced to first base (p.166)

7) that the advancing BR at first base is treated the same as a forced runner

8) that chapter 4 of OBR presents an example of BR being required to advance to first base.

NOW, you may accept the fact that the game of baseball requires the BR to advance to first base (as supported the the official interpretations and authoritative opinions) and common and customary practice,
OR..........You can believe as Childress and Willson and remain in a confusion as to why all these don't make sense. Perhaps you choose to muddy it up with verbage (and discuss poor worfing where the rule does not agree with your position) explaining that a BR is not required to advance to first-----regardless of what the official interpretations and authoritative opinions show. (Please note that the wording always seems appropriate when, indeed, it agrees with their position).

Are your eyes and brain to the level where you see wrinkles or do you see clothes?

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Bfair

I think it is obvious that if one accepts that the game requires a BR to advance to first base, then all of the following make sense:

I don't think anyone would disagree that the BR needs to advance to 1B to avoid being put out, in the same sense that any forced runner needs to advance; he can stay where he is now, but his only safe haven is 90' away. Looking at it that way, one could say that a runner/BR is "forced" to advance if he doesn't want to be put out. Of course, then any runner would be "forced" back to a base on a caught fly ball, and we know that wouldn't mesh well with the rest of the rulebook.

The problem is that the "rulebook" definition of a "forced runner" looks at it differently, and subsequent rulings are based on this definition (sans the FED passage) -- a runner is seemingly "forced" to advance when he can no longer claim the base he occupies as a safe haven; he's actually "forced" to vacate his base. Since a batter never initially occupies any base, he cannot be considered "forced" by this definition.

To summarize, the issue is not that a runner is forced to advance, but that a runner is forced to vacate.

Dennis

[Bfair]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19

I don't think anyone would disagree that the BR needs to advance to 1B to avoid being put out, in the same sense that any forced runner needs to advance; he can stay where he is now, but his only safe haven is 90' away. Looking at it that way, one could say that a runner/BR is "forced" to advance if he doesn't want to be put out. Of course, then any runner would be "forced" back to a base on a caught fly ball, and we know that wouldn't mesh well with the rest of the rulebook.

The problem is that the "rulebook" definition of a "forced runner" looks at it differently, and subsequent rulings are based on this definition (sans the FED passage) -- a runner is seemingly "forced" to advance when he can no longer claim the base he occupies as a safe haven; he's actually "forced" to vacate his base. Since a batter never initially occupies any base, he cannot be considered "forced" by this definition.

To summarize, the issue is not that a runner is forced to advance, but that a runner is forced to vacate.

Dennis

Very well put Dennis. However, I will never agree that a runner is forced to re-tag a base, perhaps required to is better terminology.

The PBUC ruling, J/R authoritative opinion, and the Fed casebook all result in the BR not only being forced to vacate (as you put it) but also being required to advance at the risk of being put out if not advancing and touching first base. Whether we want to call this a "force" is really not the issue. The application of the rulings and interpretations is what matters, not the terminology.

Some would rather argue the terminology to muddy the issue.
Just my opinion,

Steve

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19
To summarize, the issue is not that a runner is forced to advance, but that a runner is forced to vacate. Dennis

Dennis:

You put it very well -- but why? There is left but one blow hard -- sorry, I mean "die hard" {grin) -- who doesn't "understand" the point.

Originally, there were three: JJ, rex, and him. Now he's all alone, still attacking Warren and me, still clinging to his pathethic little group name. (It suddently occurs to me he may never have been invited to join any other group.) Likely it's never occurred to him why his "friends" haven't come to his side (rescue?) in this controversy.

For a final time, let me make clear my position on this issue of a 4th out made not on appeal:

1. There is no provision in any rulebook for an umpire to call a fourth out EXCEPT ON APPEAL.
   Assume here that a FED umpire calls outs on his "own appeal" when he witnesses a baserunning infraction.
   Like all books, the FED recognizes two infractions: advancing on the bases and not touching one [plate to second, missing first] and failing to retouch after a caught fly ball. (FED 8-2 Penalty)
2. Recognizing a fourth out when a B-R, following a base hit, does not run out that hit is the law of the land in OBR games, according to the PBUC.
   I certainly support that ruling and urge everyone to apply it in his games -- if the need should arise.
3. Lacking an official ruling from Hopkins, I do not believe a FED umpire shouuld apply that ruling in his games since PBUC interpretations are valid only for OBR contests.

In the ad for Wendy's, the old woman wondered: "Where's the beef?" In Jerry McGuire Cuba Gooding Jr wondered: "Where's the money?" On The Official Forum I'm wondering: "Where's the blame?" What on earth could be amiss with any of the three points I've just made?

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 29th, 2001 at 11:30 AM]

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Bfair

Very well put Dennis. However, I will never agree that a runner is forced to re-tag a base, perhaps required to is better terminology.

The PBUC ruling, J/R authoritative opinion, and the Fed casebook all result in the BR not only being forced to vacate (as you put it) but also being required to advance at the risk of being put out if not advancing and touching first base. Whether we want to call this a "force" is really not the issue. The application of the rulings and interpretations is what matters, not the terminology.

Some would rather argue the terminology to muddy the issue.
Just my opinion,

Steve

What in the hell is the point of this argument then? You claim that the BR is required to advance to 1B, where others claim that the BR is given the right to advance, but is not required to -- and all this has to do with what? A PBUC ruling we all agree is somewhat "fishy" to begin with? Well, I'm not required to pay my taxes, I just risk going to jail if I don't...

Please refresh us of the relevance of your argument, because I'm starting to believe you're just being disagreeable.

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Lacking an official ruling from Hopkins, I do not believe a FED umpire shouuld apply that ruling in his games since PBUC interpretations are valid only for OBR contests.

In the past I understood you to promote the concept that if one set of rules makes a ruling, and the other set has not ruled (but is still in question), then the ruling from the first set of rules which made a ruling should be used until addressed by the other set of rules.

Was I wrong in this understanding of analogy? (I suspect I can locate support in past posts--perhaps not). If not, does this no longer apply? Does this analogy apply only where one wants it to apply---and not where they don't? Is it used only at certain times to support one's position?

Steve
Member
EWS

Rat (catch up on past history)
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas
Blow Hard
Die Hard
Liar (if I can include Warren)

[Dakota]

As a frequent lurker here, and someone amused by our language, I can't pass up commenting on Bfair's sign-off to a couple of his recent messages,

Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing

According to Merriam-Webster,
neo-
1 a : new : recent b : new and different period or form of : in a new and different form or manner c : New World d : new and abnormal 2 : new chemical compound isomeric with or otherwise related to (such) a compound

Let's see, definition 1a for Neo-Romantic. Recent Romantic. What were you before? unresponsive; unfeeling, unloving; dry? Are you recently married? Recently divorced?

Or, perhaps, definition 1d for Neo-Know-Nothing. Abnormal-Know-Nothing. Hmmm. Makes one wonder what a normal know nothing is like. Or, even an abnormal know-something?

Just funnin', guys. Just ignore this folderol, unless of course you want to reply with good natured flames!

[JJ]

For the record - I'm still on the fence here (it was implied that "once there were three, now there's only one").
I will remain on the fence until an official FED interp/case/clarification is handed down. I respect opinions and documentation that have been presented here by BOTH sides - I just haven't been swayed one way or the other with regard to a FED interp on the play.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Dakota
As a frequent lurker here, and someone amused by our language, I can't pass up commenting on Bfair's sign-off to a couple of his recent messages,

Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing

According to Merriam-Webster,
neo-
1 a : new : recent b : new and different period or form of : in a new and different form or manner c : New World d : new and abnormal 2 : new chemical compound isomeric with or otherwise related to (such) a compound

Let's see, definition 1a for Neo-Romantic. Recent Romantic. What were you before? unresponsive; unfeeling, unloving; dry? Are you recently married? Recently divorced?

Or, perhaps, definition 1d for Neo-Know-Nothing. Abnormal-Know-Nothing. Hmmm. Makes one wonder what a normal know nothing is like. Or, even an abnormal know-something?

Just funnin', guys. Just ignore this folderol, unless of course you want to reply with good natured flames!

I can just add a new line everytime an eUmperor comes up with a new name for me.


Anything You Wish to Call Me

[Buster Light]

And maybe I too am missing the point.

Bfair is saying that (correct me if I am wrong):

1- FED requires the umpire to call out a runner for base-running infractions without appeal.
2- Not reaching first base can be considered a base-running infraction.

The problem as I see it is all in how you define the term "FORCE" in 9-1-1d below:

FED 9-1-1d: when a third out is declared during a play in which an umpire observed a base-running infraction resulting in a force-out (this out takes precedence if enforcement of it would negate a score);

Lets put it another way.... You have this situation as described in a FED game. You don't like the damn rule but the batter never even vacated the batter's box. Defensive coach comes screaming out of the dugout after you. Everyone in the park knows the batter never came within 80 feet of fist base. He wants you to call that out. You say NO. He recites 9-1-1d.

WHAT DO YOU SAY?

And don't tell me you just walk off the field. You have to justify your inaction.

None of us want to call that out but give me some real ammo not just words.

Buster

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Buster Light
And maybe I too am missing the point.

Bfair is saying that (correct me if I am wrong):

1- FED requires the umpire to call out a runner for base-running infractions without appeal.
2- Not reaching first base can be considered a base-running infraction.

The problem as I see it is all in how you define the term "FORCE" in 9-1-1d below:

FED 9-1-1d: when a third out is declared during a play in which an umpire observed a base-running infraction resulting in a force-out (this out takes precedence if enforcement of it would negate a score);

Lets put it another way.... You have this situation as described in a FED game. You don't like the damn rule but the batter never even vacated the batter's box. Defensive coach comes screaming out of the dugout after you. Everyone in the park knows the batter never came within 80 feet of fist base. He wants you to call that out. You say NO. He recites 9-1-1d.

WHAT DO YOU SAY?

And don't tell me you just walk off the field. You have to justify your inaction.

None of us want to call that out but give me some real ammo not just words.

Buster

Well, I say, "The batter is not forced to first base; therefore, the rule does not apply."

Besides, how could this be considered a "base-running infraction?" If that's the case, consider this play:

R2, R3, 2 outs. Ground ball to F6, who decides to throw to 3B to put out R2. R3 scores before R2 is tagged, but the tag comes before B1 reaches 1B.

Do we negate the run because of B1's supposed "infraction?"

Dennis