When is B1 out on desertion?

[Carl Childress]

Here was a play from an earlier thread:

R1,R2, no outs. B1 hits a Texas-leaguer to shallow LF. F6 races back, stretches out, and gloves the ball but drops it as he falls to the ground. U3 calls "safe, no catch," but not very demonstrative. No IFF called because of the extraordinary effort to even get to the ball.

Runners hold thinking it was caught. (F6 is shielding the runner's view of the ball on the ground.) BR actually trots back to his dug-out(1B side) thinking he's out. F6 gets up, throws to F5, starting the triple play.

Here's my question:

If the BR entered the dug-out before the above action, being called out for abandonment, does that remove the forces at 2B and 3B? I believe it does.

-------------
There was much talk on both sides. I myself was only half right. I knew the BR was out the instant he entered the dugout. But I posted the force would remain in effect.

In the next few days, I changed my mind. Since in my first post I had used the term "desertion" to explain a batter-runner's abandonment of running the bases before he touched first (a term borrowed from Rick Roder), I thought I'd just ask him.

I copied the play and then said: "I suggested common sense would carry the day: When B1 goes into the dugout, call him out. Other runners are out if tagged off base."

Rick replied as follows:

Hi, Carl:

The play question you had is answered on page 47 of Jaksa/Roder; the BR is out for what I call "desertion" (abandonment before touching first base) as soon as he enters the dugout. At that point the force is, of course, removed and runners [are] out if tagged as you mentioned. Going from memory; I can't get to the computer your email was on! But I hope that answers your question. Let me know if I can help further.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Now, everybody with a Jaksa/Roder knew the batter-runner was out when he entered the dugout. But did his out remove the force?

To be fair to us all, on page 47 Rick does not say the batter's out removes the force.

But the gentleman who posted the question used his common sense - and got the right answer the first time: BR is out, runners advance at their own risk - and must be tagged for an out.

Now, if you want to take issue with Rick, do so. Create all the third-world plays you want. You know, the good ones where the offense gets an advantage when the BR goes into the dugout.

One thing I'm sure of: I don't have to come back to this thread - except to read the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Tim C]

Thank you, I stand corrected.

T

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Tim C
Thank you, I stand corrected.

T

Tee, I still can't get over that you stepped off the distance from the plate to the dugout by going foot over foot, instead of bringing a tape measure.

[DG]

Originally posted by Tim C
Thank you, I stand corrected.

T

Me too. I researched it ad naueum and could not find anyhwere that the force was removed. Although logical, folks around here don't like to use 9.01C, even though, in this case it might have been appropriate.

[Rich Ives]

Create all the third-world plays you want. You know, the good ones where the offense gets an advantage when the BR goes into the dugout.



Bottom of the last inning, home trailing by one (or even better, score tied).

R1 and R3.

And it's not a TWP - but one done intentionally by using prior knowledge and planning ahead because a coach read the response and tells his batter what to do if . . . .


Batter hits a two hop sure DP ball. Intentionally runs into the dugout rather than to first. Gets called out for desertion, force on R1 removed.

Defense, not knowing the ruling, starts the DP attempt - tags only 2B, not R1.

R3 "scores" in the interim.

Result - tying (or winning) run scores because R1 is now not out as he wasn't tagged.

Do you really think the run should be allowed to score? I don't and, because I read this thread, I'm one of the few coaches that could teach my team how to do it.

And once the cat is out of the bag, "everyone" will try to do it.

And then the rulesmakers will tell us the force is not removed if, in the umpires judgement, the batter willfully enters DBT.

So why not just not allow it in the first place?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by PWL

It justs depends when you see it to as when you call it. In two man mechanics, HP has to watch for interfence at 2B and for the runner from 3B to touch the plate. BU will be watching the force at 2B and then the throw to 1B. The last thing they will be looking for is the BR. What are you going to do? Go running out to the umpires and argue that my runner made it into the dugout before the ball got to 2B. Hey, I didn't see it. Better think again.

What's up with you and Ives? How dare you discuss baseball!

[SanDiegoSteve]

I have to agree with PWL on this one. I don't think it will become a new strategy to run straight into the dugout. The interpretation may say the force is removed, but I am going to be too busy with the other aspects of the play to notice that the batter hi-tailed it to his dugout. If I turn to see the play at first, and little Johnny Batterrunner isn't in the picture, I'm going to assume he is very, very slow. Force, double-play, Jordan fades back, he shoots, he scores, Bulls win.

[JJ]

I read with amusement PWL's post about who would be watching what. Here's a post I made in another thread on November 13th -

"My question is, in a two man crew, who is actually watching the BR enter the dugout on the double-play ball? The plate guy has to watch for the interference at second, and the base guy is following the flight of the ball.
Pretty easy for me to bang the double play here."

Are we beating a dead horse, or is everyone just not reading the threads thoroughly (this is directed at Rich more than PWL, though I'm NOT looking for an argument - just pointing out that PWL's solution was posted before)?

JJ