Tagged on a force out

[GarthB]

There's nothing technical about it. That is the rule. And the wording helps to understand that it doesn't matter if the out is by tag of the runner or tag of the base.

[TussAgee11]

OP: asks question

GarthB gives correct ruling and rule that is relevent.

tibear adds pointless drivel to a question that wasn't asked.

And now the thread will turn 180 degrees into something else

[tibear]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

OP: asks question

GarthB gives correct ruling and rule that is relevent.

tibear adds pointless drivel to a question that wasn't asked.

And now the thread will turn 180 degrees into something else

Not knowing the history of the poster in the OP (their first post), I wanted to make sure they didn't infer from Garth's response that force tags at other bases were somehow treated differently then the play at first. As indicated the wording is slightly different when the play is at first but the end result is exactly the same. Not a timing play.

By adding the information about the other bases, it covered the difference between force and timing plays on all of the bases.

Can you show me how with two outs and a runner on third, the play is treated any differently if the BR is tagged before getting to first or R1 or R2 being tagged before they get to their next base? The call is EXACTLY the same, it is NOT a timing play. Yes, they are called something different but the outcome is EXACTLY the same.

I find that the more information you give novices the more confused they get. (Some umpires included, on occasion myself included). I for one would like the rulebook remove the wording for BR not reaching first and simply the rules by making it a force situation. Then every base is treated exactly the same.

Same with the wording for Infield Fly. It bothers me to know end when they say with runners on first and second or first, second and third. Simply eliminate the first, second and third because if we have the bases loaded by definition we have runners at first and second. Make the rule as simple as possible and there is a better chance that everyone will understand.

There I feel better.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

OP: asks question

GarthB gives correct ruling and rule that is relevent.

tibear adds pointless drivel to a question that wasn't asked.

And now the thread will turn 180 degrees into something else

tibear,

I don't think your post was "drivel". GarthB was correct. However, one could easily foresee the Original Poster coming back and asking: "what about if R1 was tagged out at second after R3 touchded home, instead of a middle infielder holding the ball and touching second base?" You foresaw this question and answered it correctly.

The pointless drivel, I'm afraid, came soon after your post, tibear.

[UMP25]

Why all the fuss over something so simple? Tom, all you need to ask yourself is this: Is the final out of the inning a force out (whether the forced runner is tagged or the base is tagged) or the batter runner failing to reach or touch first base? If yes, then no runs score on the play.

[Rich Ives]

tibear on IFF rule: Simply eliminate the first, second and third because if we have the bases loaded by definition we have runners at first and second.


Simple. Because if you have the bases loaded come coach (an maybe even an under-educated umpire) will say it isn't in effect because the rule says just first and second.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

tibear on IFF rule: Simply eliminate the first, second and third because if we have the bases loaded by definition we have runners at first and second.


Simple. Because if you have the bases loaded come coach (an maybe even an under-educated umpire) will say it isn't in effect because the rule says just first and second.

Easiest discussion in the world: Coach with bases loaded are there runners at first and second?? Let's play ball.

I believe in the KISS philosophy and it seems the authors of the baseball rulebook don't. They should try to simplify the rulebook as much as possible so there wouldn't be so much confusion.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by GarthB

No fuss, here, just the rule.

I concluded long ago, Garth, that if you ask most umpires what time it is, they won't tell you; instead, they'll tell you how to build a watch.

You should have been at the Midwest region's NCAA Umpire meetings in Indy this year, where we spent at least an hour over ONE little question on the new NCAA Force Play Slide Rule. The question so hotly discussed? The pop-up slide being legal if done in line with the base.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I concluded long ago, Garth, that if you ask most umpires what time it is, they won't tell you; instead, they'll tell you how to build a watch.

You should have been at the Midwest region's NCAA Umpire meetings in Indy this year, where we spent at least an hour over ONE little question on the new NCAA Force Play Slide Rule. The question so hotly discussed? The pop-up slide being legal if done in line with the base.

Well, it should've been clear by game 2 or so. Just about every slide this season at second during my college schedule was a pop-up slide. I'll need to get to one of those meetings next year.