I ain't letting it go

[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