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]