Advance on Base on Balls

[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.

[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

[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)