I ain't letting it go

[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