(FED) Missing a base DOES NOT remove the force

[Illini_Ref]

2-29-3 "When a runner advances beyond a base to which he is forced without touching it, the force play REMAINS".

If passing a missed base removes a force it is in another rule set other than FED. It took forever, but I finally found it.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

2-29-3 "When a runner advances beyond a base to which he is forced without touching it, the force play REMAINS".

If passing a missed base removes a force it is in another rule set other than FED. It took forever, but I finally found it.

Congratulations on finding your quest!

[Dave Reed]

However, a different rule (8-4-2) implies a contrary result:

Any runner is out when he:

j. 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. There shall be no accidental appeals on a force play.

I believe that 2-29-3 simply means that if an appeal is sustained on a missed base, the out is a force out, and not a timing play. I suppose that FED isn't intentionally trying to handle the concept of acquiring a base differently to OBR and NCAA.

[greymule]

As Dave Reed says, Fed is simply clarifying that an appeal of a runner who has missed a base to which he was forced remains a force play no matter what might have occurred behind that runner.

For example:

Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, one out. Charles lines a hit down the RF line. Abel scores, Baker misses 2B and advances to 3B. Charles is thrown out at 2B for the second out. The defense appeals Baker's miss of 2B.

Even though Charles has been put out, the force remains on Baker's miss of 2B, since Baker was forced at the time he missed the bag. Therefore, the third out is a force play and Abel's run doesn't count.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

2-29-3 "When a runner advances beyond a base to which he is forced without touching it, the force play REMAINS".

If passing a missed base removes a force it is in another rule set other than FED. It took forever, but I finally found it.

Yes, of course. But this is relevant to greymule's case and the like, not the case you were asking about in the other thread.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

2-29-3 "When a runner advances beyond a base to which he is forced without touching it, the force play REMAINS".

If passing a missed base removes a force it is in another rule set other than FED. It took forever, but I finally found it.

Finally?

You were pointed to that section on Moday at 7:48 central time (see post #13 in the other thread).

[Illini_Ref]

My bad.

I have just been so confused by this. Now I know that many of you, actually most all, say that it shouldn't be confusing. However, I have contacted two separate clinicians in Illinois, from two different parts of the state. They both have said that if a runner misses a base he is forced to and is returning there does NOT need to be a tag. They both reference that the force is still on and that a force out can be obtained by merely touching the base.

Both said that this is not an accidental appeal it is merely satisfying the requirements of a force out.

I would just like to see an actual ruling from the FED saying the runner has to be tagged. Right or wrong, there case book says he does NOT.

I feel like I'm delaying the death of a thread that should die. I just want to get it right. I can understand both arguments. I just have no support provided from the NFHS that says any returning runner has to tagged whether he was forced or not.

[thumpferee]

Just to add fuel to the fire.

8-2-5 Penalty(NOTE) When a play by its very nature is imminent and is obvious to the offense, defense and umpire(s), no verbal appeal is necessary. e.g. runner attempting to retouch a base that was missed, or a failure to tag up and a throw has been made to that base or plate while a play is in progress.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

My bad.

I have just been so confused by this. Now I know that many of you, actually most all, say that it shouldn't be confusing. However, I have contacted two separate clinicians in Illinois, from two different parts of the state. They both have said that if a runner misses a base he is forced to and is returning there does NOT need to be a tag. They both reference that the force is still on and that a force out can be obtained by merely touching the base.

Both said that this is not an accidental appeal it is merely satisfying the requirements of a force out.

I would just like to see an actual ruling from the FED saying the runner has to be tagged. Right or wrong, there case book says he does NOT.

I feel like I'm delaying the death of a thread that should die. I just want to get it right. I can understand both arguments. I just have no support provided from the NFHS that says any returning runner has to tagged whether he was forced or not.

For more confusion, compare 8.4.2A with 8.2.3.

Compare your play (8.2.2E) with 8.4.2B.

My take, after all this:

If a runner misses a base to which he is forced, the defense can get a force out by intentionally touching the base before the runner returns (whether or not the runner is attempting to return).

If the runner misses a base to which he is not forced and is attempting to return, the runner must be tagged.

If the runner misses a base to which he is not forced and is not attempting to return, the defense can appeal by intentionally tagging the base.

As a practical matter, I've never seen a missed base be appealed during "unrelaxed" playing action. In play 8.2.2E, the defense will try to tag the runner.

[bigda65]

And for more confusion,

They both have said that if a runner misses a base he is forced to and is returning there does NOT need to be a tag. They both reference that the force is still on and that a force out can be obtained by merely touching the base.

With an appeal I agree with this, otherwise this statement is no longer valid, since there is not an accidental appeal anymore.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

My bad.

I have just been so confused by this. Now I know that many of you, actually most all, say that it shouldn't be confusing. However, I have contacted two separate clinicians in Illinois, from two different parts of the state. They both have said that if a runner misses a base he is forced to and is returning there does NOT need to be a tag. They both reference that the force is still on and that a force out can be obtained by merely touching the base.

I do not know how you were wording your question to the clinicians. There statement is correct but it depends upon where the runner is.

Example: R1 outs irrelevant. Ground ball to F6 who throws to F4 to get the force on R1. R1 beats the play, slides past the bag and IMMEDIATELY scrambles back to touch the bag with his hand.

I think (could be dangerous) what the clinicians are referring to is a case where R1 does not touch second base on route to third base. R1 is about half-way to third when he starts retreating back to second base. F4 standing on the bag says "hey blue he missed second base") then the appeal will be honored.


You also have to remember the concept of last time by as well. In reality on a play in which the runner misses (slides past) a base and immediately scrambles back and tags the base, by the time the fielder says "hey Blue he missed second base" etc. The runner at this point has already Touched the base.

It's no different then on a fly ball R1 passes second base and does not touch it, but upon his return to first base touches second base on his last time by.

Could FED do a better job in explaining this - Yes as with the case of their new OBS definition and case plays

Pete Booth

[papablue]

Originally Posted by greymule

Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, one out. Charles lines a hit down the RF line. Abel scores, Baker misses 2B and advances to 3B. Charles is thrown out at 2B for the second out. The defense appeals Baker's miss of 2B.

Even though Charles has been put out, the force remains on Baker's miss of 2B, since Baker was forced at the time he missed the bag. Therefore, the third out is a force play and Abel's run doesn't count.

grey,

For those of us discussing this play locally that work little FED, are you aware of any OBR-based reference that supports the statement that the force still remains on R1 when the B/R is put out?


John

[greymule]

For those of us discussing this play locally that work little FED, are you aware of any OBR-based reference that supports the statement that the force still remains on R1 when the B/R is put out?

Several situations are covered in the BRD. I have the 2006 version, #243. Here's what it says in terms of Fed and OBR:

FED: A force in effect at the time of the pitch remains in effect for the entire play only if a baserunning error occurs before a following runner is put out.

OBR: Point not covered. Official Interpretation Fitzpatrick: Same as Fed.

OBR: J/R: "If a consecutive runner has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner, and he is forced at the moment he misses his advance base, an appeal of that is always a force out."

So Fed and OBR are identical in this. NCAA, on the other hand, goes not by whether the runner was forced at the time he missed the bag, but by whether he was forced at the time the play began.

[papablue]

Thanks, grey. We had many seasoned vets on our staff leaning the other way with this, so your references will be extremely helpful.

John

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by greymule

For those of us discussing this play locally that work little FED, are you aware of any OBR-based reference that supports the statement that the force still remains on R1 when the B/R is put out?

[snip]

NCAA, on the other hand, goes not by whether the runner was forced at the time he missed the bag, but by whether he was forced at the time the play began.

Greymule,
I've commented on this before, but seemingly without anybody noticing. So I'll try to incite some comment by saying it more strongly.

All three rule sets treat this the same way.

The BRD is wrong.

Here's the NCAA rule 8-5j
SECTION 5. A runner is out when:
.......
j. The individual fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags the runner or the base after the runner has been forced to advance because the batter became a runner;
Exception—No runner can be forced out if a runner who follows in the batting order is put out first. However, if a runner is put out during live action, it does not remove the force on any runners who might subsequently be declared out for a running infraction.
......

To paraphrase the country western song: Which part of the bolded statement above doesn't Childress understand? In my 2004 BRD, he quotes only the second part of the exception, and that makes it a lot easier to misinterpret the second sentence.

I believe that "subsequently declared out" refers to when an appeal is sustained (it says "declared", not "put out") rather than the moment the baserunning error occurred.

The NCAA rule isn't a model of clarity, but to interpret it the way CC has requires us to believe that the NCAA wants to treat this aspect of baseball differently than other rulesets (for no plausible reason), and also to believe that they intentionally wrote consecutive sentences that directly contradict each other.