Advance on Base on Balls

[tibear]

I'm sure I've read this a hundred times:

6.08
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when --
(a) Four “balls” have been called by the umpire;
Rule 6.08(a) Comment: A batter who is entitled to first base because of a base on balls must go to first base and touch the base before other base runners are forced to advance. This applies when bases are full and applies when a substitute runner is put into the game.

Does this imply that until the BR touches first the other runners are not forced and thus must remain on their TOP bases? If the runners leave early are they in danger of being tagged out?

I've never seen that situation occur where all of the runners waited until the previous runner "forced" them off the base.

Opinions, Comments??

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by tibear

I'm sure I've read this a hundred times:

6.08
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when --
(a) Four “balls” have been called by the umpire;
Rule 6.08(a) Comment: A batter who is entitled to first base because of a base on balls must go to first base and touch the base before other base runners are forced to advance. This applies when bases are full and applies when a substitute runner is put into the game.

Does this imply that until the BR touches first the other runners are not forced and thus must remain on their TOP bases? If the runners leave early are they in danger of being tagged out?

I've never seen that situation occur where all of the runners waited until the previous runner "forced" them off the base.

Opinions, Comments??

Really! What is the point of this question?
Please don't tell us you are thinking that if the batter receives a 4th ball and the R1 leaves for 2nd before the batter-runner reaches 1st base that R1 can be tagged out? (this is what I am reading from you question)

[LMan]

All other runners forced to advance are awarded their advance base. They are only liable to be put out if they advance beyond their awarded base. Look at 7.04b

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by tibear

I'm sure I've read this a hundred times:

6.08
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when --
(a) Four “balls” have been called by the umpire;
Rule 6.08(a) Comment: A batter who is entitled to first base because of a base on balls must go to first base and touch the base before other base runners are forced to advance. This applies when bases are full and applies when a substitute runner is put into the game.

Does this imply that until the BR touches first the other runners are not forced and thus must remain on their TOP bases? If the runners leave early are they in danger of being tagged out?

I've never seen that situation occur where all of the runners waited until the previous runner "forced" them off the base.

Opinions, Comments??

GET REAL!!!

[tibear]

I agree with everyone here that it doesn't make any sense but how do you explain the comment?? Doesn't it clearly say that the force advance doesn't occur until the batter/runner has TOUCHED the base?

Any casebooks which explain this comment further?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tibear

I agree with everyone here that it doesn't make any sense but how do you explain the comment?? Doesn't it clearly say that the force advance doesn't occur until the batter/runner has TOUCHED the base?

Any casebooks which explain this comment further?

1. It says "before other runners are forced" using the technical language of why they are advancing. It does not mean they cannot leave prior to the B/R touching the bag.

2. Is there something in the water in Canada and that brings on this condition?

[PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by tibear

I'm sure I've read this a hundred times:

Does this imply that until the BR touches first the other runners are not forced and thus must remain on their TOP bases? If the runners leave early are they in danger of being tagged out?

I've never seen that situation occur where all of the runners waited until the previous runner "forced" them off the base.

Opinions, Comments??

I know it's Friday and IMO you probably want to get a "rise' out of everyone but in the words of John McEnroe "You can't be serious"

When B1 receives ball 4 he is not longer a batter but a batter turned runner.
At the EXACT moment B1 recevies ball 4 both R1 and R2 by rule (See definition of Force) are Forced to advance. They do not have to wait "until" B1 actually touches first base before they can advance.

Pete Booth

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by tibear

I agree with everyone here that it doesn't make any sense but how do you explain the comment?? Doesn't it clearly say that the force advance doesn't occur until the batter/runner has TOUCHED the base?

Any casebooks which explain this comment further?

When ball 4 is called all forced runners are allowed to immediately advance to next base with out liability.

At least 2 situations exist that would put these runners at risk.

1. Ball 4 is reversed by check swing appeal
2. BR fails to advance to 1st.
As in following example:

Bottom 7, 1 out bases full, tie game.

B5 draws a walk. Instead of going to first BR celebrates as home team dugout empties. Heads up F2 tags R3 as he comes skipping into home.
BR heads back to dugout with rest of the team.

If just getting ball 4 entitled the forced runners to advance then this game is over, however, because of this rule we go to extra innings.

[SanDiegoSteve]

6.08(a) Comment must be one of the 230+ errors in the OBR book that we keep hearing about, yet nothing ever gets done to correct.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

6.08(a) Comment must be one of the 230+ errors in the OBR book that we keep hearing about, yet nothing ever gets done to correct.

Thanks Steve. I quoted the comment in the rulebook and everyone is jumping all over me instead of discussing the rulebook comment itself.

[UmpJM]

tibear,

Strange wording indeed.

I believe Don Mueller has given you the correct answer in terms of the intent behind the inclusion of this language in the rulebook.

In potential game-winning or half-inning ending situations, in order for a run to score, the BR must "complete" his award or no run scores - even if other forced runners do complete their awards.

JM

[tibear]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

tibear,

Strange wording indeed.

I believe Don Mueller has given you the correct answer in terms of the intent behind the inclusion of this language in the rulebook.

In potential game-winning or half-inning ending situations, in order for a run to score, the BR must "complete" his award or no run scores - even if other forced runners do complete their awards.

JM

Yes, Don is probably right and I agree that the wording is strange.

With the wording they use, they should use a situational example similar to others used in the rulebook.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

6.08(a) Comment must be one of the 230+ errors in the OBR book that we keep hearing about, yet nothing ever gets done to correct.

The books are written for MLB *only*. Other organizations are "allowed" to use them. No one at the MLB level has trouble with mopst of the errors (including this one). It's not worth the effort for them to change most of the errors. Live with it (or write your own "corrected" book and sell it).

(And, to be clear, I don't mean to direct that last comment at only SDS)

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by tibear

Thanks Steve. I quoted the comment in the rulebook and everyone is jumping all over me instead of discussing the rulebook comment itself.

No, we are all well aware of the "technical error". What we are jumping on is the "interpretation" that you seem to be buying into. As dumb as coaches may be (rule book wise), I have never heard such dribble coming even from them!

The original post of yours has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read on the Internet (other than a Casa or Morgan rule interpretation). I agree, there are inconsistencies in the rules, but to become this literal is just being a complete rectal orifice!

Please learn your craft!

[tibear]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

No, we are all well aware of the "technical error". What we are jumping on is the "interpretation" that you seem to be buying into. As dumb as coaches may be (rule book wise), I have never heard such dribble coming even from them!

The original post of yours has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read on the Internet (other than a Casa or Morgan rule interpretation). I agree, there are inconsistencies in the rules, but to become this literal is just being a complete rectal orifice!

Please learn your craft!

whatever