Contradiction?

[greymule]

Can someone reconcile these two Fed case book rulings for me?

I realize that these plays are described under the old "umpire sees it" non-appeal rules, but let's assume proper appeals. Or would the rulings be different under the new rules?

9.1.1H: With R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, and R3 on 1B and one out, B5 hits safely to right field. R1 scores, R2 misses 3B (witnessed by umpire) and scores and R3 is thrown out at 3B. At the end of playing action, the umpire declares R2 out. How many runs score? RULING: No runs score since the putout of R2 at 3B was a force out and also the third out of the inning.

9.1.1K: With no outs and the bases loaded, B1 grounds into a 6-4-3 double play as R1 and R2 score. R2 misses 3B and is declared out for the third out. RULING: R2's out is not a force out for the third out; therefore, R1 scores.

To me, 9.1.1K makes sense. The force on R2 is removed because a following runner has been put out. So why isn't that the case in 9.1.1H? When R3 was out at 3B, wasn't the force on R2 removed? How can the subsequent out on R2 still be a force play? What am I missing?

What about this play? R1 is on 3B and R2 is on 1B with one out. B3 doubles but misses 1B and R2 misses 2B while advancing to 3B as R1 scores. The defense appeals (a) B3 missing 1B and then R2 missing 2B, or (b) R2 missing 2B and then B3 missing 1B for the third out. If the umpires uphold the appeals at both bases, does R1's run score in (a) or (b)?

[Edited by greymule on Mar 7th, 2002 at 11:22 AM]

[Roger Greene]

Greymule,

In 9.1.1H when R2 missed 3rd base he was forced to that base. The tag of R1 at 3rd base was after each runner had advanced beyond their forced base, and R1 was attempting to gain a second base. R1's out at 3rd had no effect on the force plays at the first base each runner was forced to advance toward.

In 9.1.1K the defense made a decision to play on R1 and the BR on their "forced" bases, and those outs removed the force on preceeding runners.

In your sitch, if the defense appeals in the correct order so that the 3rd out is on the BR at 1st, then no runs may score. If the appeal in an order so that the BR is appealed at 1st for the 2nd out, and then R1 is appealed at 2nd base for the third out, the force has been removed at 2nd base, (just as if the plays were actually made in that order) and all runs that crossed the plate before the time of the appeal at 2nd would score.

Is that clear as mud?

Roger Greene

[bob jenkins]

Interesting conflict.

8-4-2j Exception states that "No runner may be forced out if a runner who follows him in the batting order is first put out." In case 9.1.1H, R3 was put out before R2 (damn FED notation) and R3 followed R2 in the batting order. So, we'd not ahve a force out on the appeal.

But, 2-29-3 states that "For a given runner, a force play ends as soon as ... a following runner is put out AT A PREVIOUS BASE." (emphasis added) In case 9.1.1H, R3 was put out at the base to which R2 was forced -- not at a previous base. Therefor, R2 was still forced to third, and the out is a force out.

Maybe the case is saying that 2-29-3 takes precedence.

[Bfair]

Bob, I think it would wise to show all of the 8-4-2j rule:

Any runner is out when he:

fails to reach the next base before a fielder either tags the runner out or holds the ball while touching such base, after runner has been forced from the base he occupied because the batter became a runner (with ball in play) when other runners were on first base, or on first and second, or on first, second and third.
EXCEPTION: No runner may be forced out if a runner who follows him in the batting order is first put out (including a batter-runner who is out for an infield fly).

In situation 9.1.1h, since the runner "reached" the base I would not see 8-4-2j as the applicable rule, but rather rule 8-2 and it's penalty for not touching bases. (Appeal rule and penalty).

Now add to that rule 2-29-3 which states:

When a runner advances beyond a base to
which he is forced without touching it, the force play remains. [my emphasis]

Thus, in 9.1.1h the force remains in effect on R2 for missing 3rd base. At least that's how I see it.

In 9.1.1k, the force on R2 had been removed during playing action.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Interesting conflict.

8-4-2j Exception states that "No runner may be forced out if a runner who follows him in the batting order is first put out." In case 9.1.1H, R3 was put out before R2 (damn FED notation) and R3 followed R2 in the batting order. So, we'd not ahve a force out on the appeal.

But, 2-29-3 states that "For a given runner, a force play ends as soon as ... a following runner is put out AT A PREVIOUS BASE." (emphasis added) In case 9.1.1H, R3 was put out at the base to which R2 was forced -- not at a previous base. Therefor, R2 was still forced to third, and the out is a force out.

Maybe the case is saying that 2-29-3 takes precedence.

Bob:

Interesting! I thought I posted the answer to this question yesterday. I guess I "previewed" without "submitting."

Contrary to what someone posted, this has nothing to do with passing a base or rounding a base, or anything you might have left out, or anything esoteric other than WHEN an out was made.

In Situation 9.1.1. K, the out was made BEFORE the runner from second missed the base. Therefore, the force was removed, and the run scores.

In Situation 9.1.1. H, the out (on appeal) was made AFTER the runner missed the base. Therefore, the force was NOT removed, and the run does NOT score.

An official interpretation now aligns OBR with those rulings.

That is not the case in NCAA. I know because I wrote that rule back in the 80s. At that level, a force in effect at the time of the pitch remains in effect throughout the play if baserunning errors are later in question.

Thus, in BOTH cases the run would NOT score in an NCAA contest. That, of course, is the simplest rule to adminster.

Just my facts. (grin)

[greymule]

I lay in bed last night trying to figure out the theoretical difference between 9.1.1H and 9.1.1K. Is it the "at a previous base" phrase that is operative? Take an extreme example: R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 1B, 1 out. B5 hits a ball off the fence. R1 scores. R2 scores but missed 3B. R3 is out at home plate. In an appeal at 3B, the force on R2 is obviously not affected by R3's having been put out at home. The third out is a force play and no runs count.

But in 9.1.1H, R3 was put out at 3B--before he got to the base R2 was forced to. What difference does it make whether R3 was tagged between 1B and 2B, forced at 2B, tagged after rounding 2B, or tagged sliding in to 3B? Without "guidance" from the case book, I'd have said the appeal at 3B was NOT a force and allowed the run.

In 9.1.1H, if F5 had put his glove down on the front edge of the bag to catch R3, then R2 would have been out on the inadvertent appeal play we were talking about. Then the third out would have been a tag play on R3 at 3B, and R1's run WOULD COUNT!

In fact, I hope I get both plays in my next game. Top of the seventh, tie score: "Hey coach, no run. On the appeal, your guy was forced at 3B for the third out even though a following runner had been put out." Then in the bottom of the seventh, "No, coach, it's not the same play. Their run counts because your third baseman touched the bag for the second out before he tagged the runner. The out at third is a tag play. Run counts, you lose. Have a nice ride home."

P.S. Just read Carl's post. I still don't understand.

[SamNVa]

Greymule,

Since R3 advanced to 2nd safely, R2 was forced to advance to 3rd since he could no longer safely return to 2nd. If R3 had been put out at 2nd, the force on R2 would bave been removed, since 2nd base would now be open. The fact that R3 was put out attempting to advance to 3rd has no bearing on the force play on R2, the fact that R3 was safe at 2nd forced R2 to advance to 3rd.

SamC

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by greymule
P.S. Just read Carl's post. I still don't understand.

Carl is saying, "If the runner is forced at the moment he misses the base, then any subsequent appeal on that runner at that base will be a force out."

In one of the plays, the runner was still forced at the time he missed the base -- no runs.

In the other, an out had been made on a trailing runner before the runner in question missed the base. That runner was no longer forced when he missed the base, so it's not a force out and the run(s) count.

As I read this, Carl, Steve and I have given three (slightly) different reasons why the case book plays are correct.

[greymule]

Sam: R2 was forced to advance to 3B as soon as B5 became a baserunner. But if R3 was put out, which he was in this play, then the force is off. Maybe I'm still missing something.

[greymule]

"If the runner was forced at the time he missed the bag." At least we now have something to go by, Bob. However, that opens up another can of worms. In the last play on my original post (I see that I had erroneously said R2 on 2B, but by the description of the play, he was obviously on 1B), both R2 and B3 missed bases to which they were forced. However, at least according to Roger G, the ORDER of the appeals is crucial--the defense must first appeal 2B and then 1B. If they first appeal 1B, then the force at 2B is OFF. If Roger is correct, the fact that R1 was forced AT THE TIME HE MISSED THE BAG is irrelevant.

Other worms are also crawling out of other cans.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by greymule
"If the runner was forced at the time he missed the bag." At least we now have something to go by, Bob. However, that opens up another can of worms. In the last play on my original post (I see that I had erroneously said R2 on 2B, but by the description of the play, he was obviously on 1B), both R2 and B3 missed bases to which they were forced. However, at least according to Roger G, the ORDER of the appeals is crucial--the defense must first appeal 2B and then 1B. If they first appeal 1B, then the force at 2B is OFF. If Roger is correct, the fact that R1 was forced AT THE TIME HE MISSED THE BAG is irrelevant.

Other worms are also crawling out of other cans.

Maybe. But, when was the last time you saw two runners miss a base during the same play, much less see them both appealed?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by greymule
"If the runner was forced at the time he missed the bag." At least we now have something to go by, Bob. However, that opens up another can of worms. In the last play on my original post (I see that I had erroneously said R2 on 2B, but by the description of the play, he was obviously on 1B), both R2 and B3 missed bases to which they were forced. However, at least according to Roger G, the ORDER of the appeals is crucial--the defense must first appeal 2B and then 1B. If they first appeal 1B, then the force at 2B is OFF. If Roger is correct, the fact that R1 was forced AT THE TIME HE MISSED THE BAG is irrelevant.

Other worms are also crawling out of other cans.

Greymule:

Am I beginning to understand why you chose the "mule" as part of your handle? (grin)

The order of appeals IS important, according to an interpretation by the entire staff of minor league baseball.

But it's important when BOTH outs are gained on appeal. Appeal the preceding runner and then the following runner: Force remains in effect. Appeal the following runner and then the preceding runner. Force is not in effect. Note: Neither out occured BEFORE the runner missed a force base. So, it's only by official interpretation of PBUC that the order counts AFTER continuing action is over.

That's a side issue, which you should not allow to cloud your thinking about the FED case plays.

The "order of appeals" is NOT relevant to either of the situations you quoted.

Step by step:

Situation K:

Runner from third scores.
Runner from second (misses third and) scores.
Defense turns a 6-4-3 double play.
When the runner from first (following runner) was thrown out at second, that OUT occurred (so the play says) BEFORE R2 could reach third base.

So, when the runner from second DID NOT TOUCH THE BASE, he was not forced to touch it. He could have, in fact, turned right around and retreated to second.

Since he missed a base to which he was NOT forced, when he is appealed, his out for the third out is NOT a force out.

Therefore, the runner from third DOES score.

Got that?

If you have that, then you can certainly see that in Situation H no runner was retired on the bases before R2 missed third.

So, even though a following runner was retired before the runner from second was retired, the following runner was not retired before the runner from second missed third. That means the force situation was still in effect when he missed the base. That means his out (the third out) came on a force out.

Therefore, the runner from third does NOT score.

Got that?

The rest, as they say, is muy facil.

As for Bob's and Steve's explanations, I haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about.

Everything hinges on this one issue: What was the state of the base at the time the runner missed it?

Force base? Force out. Run can't score.
Not a force base? Not a force out. Run can score.

It's too easy for words.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 7th, 2002 at 12:20 PM]

[greymule]

Thank you, Carl.

OK. I accept that if the force was on when the runner missed the bag, the appeal is a force. If the force was off when the runner missed the bag, the appeal is not a force. I now have that in a frame on the wall.

I can also see that the order of appeals would be crucial where one is a tag play and the other is a force play. You make sure you appeal the tag play first so you can get the third out on the force play.

Now just tell me that I am right in the following play and I will cease and desist being a mule: R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 1B, no outs. B4 hits an inside the park home run. R1 scores, R2 misses 3B, R3 misses 2B, and B4 misses 1B. Each runner missed a base to which he was forced at the time he missed it. Therefore, no matter in which order the defense appeals, all three outs are considered force plays. If all three appeals are upheld, no runs score, including R1's.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by greymule
Thank you, Carl.

OK. I accept that if the force was on when the runner missed the bag, the appeal is a force. If the force was off when the runner missed the bag, the appeal is not a force. I now have that in a frame on the wall.

I can also see that the order of appeals would be crucial where one is a tag play and the other is a force play. You make sure you appeal the tag play first so you can get the third out on the force play.

Now just tell me that I am right in the following play and I will cease and desist being a mule: R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 1B, no outs. B4 hits an inside the park home run. R1 scores, R2 misses 3B, R3 misses 2B, and B4 misses 1B. Each runner missed a base to which he was forced at the time he missed it. Therefore, no matter in which order the defense appeals, all three outs are considered force plays. If all three appeals are upheld, no runs score, including R1's.

Mule:

You're halfway to Missouri.

Stay with me now.

When all outs are made on appeal, we care only what the status of the base is AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL, not when the runner missed the base.

(That's something the dilettantes on McGriff's could never get their fingers on.)

Why? Because that's what the PBUC staff said, and for that reason only.

You MIGHT parse the book and come up with a phrase here, a clause there, that means such is not black letter law and therefore not a "good" ruling.

Who cares? There's nothing in the OBR about the theory of the intervening play either. Or the time of the pitch. Or when a runner advances beyond a missed base, when is it too late to be corrected? Or a whole raft of other issues.

I'm using international notation now:

So in your play where three runners miss "force" bases, if the defense appeals B1 first, R3 will NOT score after the other two runners are appealed, whatever the order of their appeals.

If the defense appeals R2 at third first, R1 at second second, and B1 at first, third (still with me?), every out has the effect of a force, and the third out was made by the batter-runner's failure to reach first base, so....

[greymule]

I think I've got it! Now I'm looking forward to calling the following play:

One out. R1 on 3B, R2 on 1B. R2, a very fast runner, is off with the pitch. B3, a slow runner, hits a high chop over the mound. R1 sprints for home. F6 sees no play except the easy one at 1B and so takes his time to make sure of the out. R2 rounds second but misses the bag. F6 throws to 1B to retire B3. R2 runs to 3B. The throw from F3 to F5 is too late to get R2, but as R2 is standing on the bag, F5 nonchalantly tags him anyway.

The key here is of course that at the time R2 missed 2B, the force was still on. The out had not yet been recorded at 1B.

"OK, R2, you're out on the accidental-force-appeal-whatever-it-is, and R1, your run doesn't count."

I can hardly wait!