Out at first not a force play

[greymule]

R3, R1, 2 out. BR hits ground ball to F6, who steps on 2B for the third out. Everybody knows that R3's run does not count even if R3 crossed the plate before the out. The third out was a force play.

Same situation, but F6 throws to F3 for the out at 1B. Everybody knows that R3's run does not count even if R3 crossed the plate before the out. The third out was made by the BR before he reached 1B safely.

But why is the BR's out not considered a force out? Can anyone think of a play in which the distinction between the BR out before reaching 1B and a runner being forced out at another base makes any difference? If the BR out before reaching 1B has exactly the same effect as a force play, why do we draw the distinction?

[Chuck99]

"A force play is a play in which a runner legally loses the right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner". Now by definition plays at first cant be force plays. I believe the distinction is made to apply a {force type} ruling to first base. Think about an appeal on the runner missing first in your second example. By definition of the force play I believe you would have to score the run. I am sure someone will let me know if I'm wrong.

[Marty Rogers]

I'll give this one a try (with help from Jaska/Roder).

A force out can occur when there is a consecutive runner. A runner is consecutive if, at the time of pitch, each lesser base is occupied. R1 is always consecutive because there is always a batter, R2 is with R1, R3 is with R2 AND R1. In these situations, the runners noted MUST leave their bases for the following runners advancing behind them.

The force out does not apply to the batter-runner because he is not consecutive (by definition he cannot be forced).
So, that's the explanation I could find.

Per situation #2: If BR misses 1B and defense appeals successfully, the run by R3 cannot score. The third out is the batter-runner before touching or passing 1B, or the batter-runner on an appeal for missing 1B, or when a batted ball is caught. 4.09a

[Bfair]

Originally posted by greymule

Can anyone think of a play in which the distinction between the BR out before reaching 1B and a runner being forced out at another base makes any difference? If the BR out before reaching 1B has exactly the same effect as a force play, why do we draw the distinction?

Let's try this example which I submitted to the WUA (Rick Roder) for their response
quite some time ago:

No runners, batter hits the ball down the LF line overruns first and thinks the ball was called foul after hearing a fan loudly yell "foul ball." He trots half way back to the plate when the ball is relayed back to F3 standing on 1B before the batter-runner reaches first again. BR learned of his error and slides into 1B without his person being tagged.

Is a BR "forced" to 1B?
Does the force reinstatment rule apply?
If not "forced" to 1B, how could a force be reinstated?

Here's the WUA's response:

Hi Steve,

The batter-runner is out for abandoning his effort to run the bases; he is out as soon as an umpire determines that he is no longer advancing toward second nor returning to first.

Thanks for your question!

World Umpires Association

So, assuming you would agree with this WUA ruling.........
and that you would call this returning BR out for abandonment before he reaches home on his return and not provide him the opportunity to ultimately correct his error (as he attempted to do in the situation), then it would seem different than any other runner being forced. I'd think that you would allow a forced runner to return and reinstate his force (without declaring him out for abandonment) when done so at other bases.

---

Of course, this WUA ruling would disagree with the JEA criteria about abandonment
where Evans states under his Professional Interpretation of 7.08(a.2):

A batter-runner who inexplicably fails to return directly to 1st base after overrunning it
shall not be called out before entering the dugout. [my emphasis]

It seems Evans provides far more leeway to the BR on abandonment than Roder allows.
So, who do you listen to........Roder or Evans?

And if you accept Evans and do not call out the BR for abandonment, then what is the BR's status in the original situation provided the WUA? Is the runner out? Was a "force" reinstated? Or would the returning runner be "safe" since his person was not tagged in his ultimate return to 1B?


Freix

[greymule]

Freix: Their claim of abandonment is interesting. To me, if a batter hits a fly ball to center field and starts walking back toward the 3B dugout, but then F8 drops the ball, the batter can still turn around and run to 1B. But according to them, he abandoned effort and would be out. And in that case, why wait for F8 to catch the ball? Call the BR out as soon as he takes a few steps toward the dugout.

On the play you mention, I would rule that the BR reinstated the force by retreating toward home and that only 1B need be tagged. However, I'd be careful to use terminology other than "force." By the way, I've seen that play happen, and for what it's worth, the umps called an out when the base was tagged.

Otherwise, I cannot think of a single play in which interpreting the BR as being "forced" to 1B on a ground ball would change a ruling.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by greymule

On the play you mention, I would rule that the BR reinstated the force by retreating toward home and that only 1B need be tagged. However, I'd be careful to use terminology other than "force." By the way, I've seen that play happen, and for what it's worth, the umps called an out when the base was tagged.

I think I, too, would rule as you do.
However, I'd not be so concerned about sidestepping the wording of reinstating the force.

Here is Childress' comments regarding official interpretations:

When Rumble (FED) and Thurston, now Fetchiet, (NCAA) speak, that is ex cathedra and supersedes the rule book language, regardless of what that language may say.

So.....let's review what the official interpretations and authoritative opinions have to say about it.

---

For the Fed you can merely look at the Fed Rule Reference post above. It shows Fed play 8.2.3:

8.2.3 SITUATION: B1 hits a slow roller to F5 and arrives safely but misses first base. F3 catches the ball and casually steps on first base, though he believes the runner has beaten the throw.
Ruling: B1 is out. Because the force play is being made on the runner and is a result of continuing action, F3 is not required to appeal the missed base and needs only to complete the force out. [my emphasis]

Please advise how there can be a "force out" at 1B unless the batter-runner was forced?
Hasn't the Fed with this caseplay just told us that a BR is forced to 1B?

---

For OBR, here is there definition of a double play:

A DOUBLE PLAY is a play by the defense in which two offensive players are put out as a
result of continuous action, providing there is no error between putouts.
(a) A force double play is one in which both putouts are force plays.
(b) A reverse force double play is one in which the first out is a force play and the second out is made on a runner for whom the force is removed by reason of the first out. Examples of reverse force plays: runner on first, one out; batter grounds to first baseman, who steps on first base (one out) and throws to second baseman or shortstop for the second out (a tag play).

Note that the definition says that “the first out is a force play”, and then they cite the batter-runner at 1B as the first out.

And here's what Jim Evans says in the JEA under "force play":

It is important to understand that anytime a following runner or the batter-runner is retired, all force plays on preceding runners are removed.
A runner can never be considered forced to any base beyond the base he occupied at the time of the pitch. For example, the bases are loaded with 2 outs. The batter hits a home run. The runner from third is forced home; the runner from second is considered forced to third only; the runner from first is considered forced to second only; and the batter-runner is considered forced to first only. [my emphasis]

There are other examples in authoritative opinion referring the out at 1B as a force out, but it sure seems to me that Evans states that he considers the BR forced to 1B.

And J/R states:

Any runner (including the batter-runner) is out when:
(2) he is forced out.

Well, if a batter-ruuner is not forced to 1B, then please tell me where else a batter-runner could be forced? It seems J/R agrees a batter-runner is forced to 1B.

---

So what about NCAA? The NCAA issued the 4th advantageous out ruling:

PLAY: Two outs, runners on second base and third base. The batter singles to the outfield, but injures himself coming out of the box and cannot continue to first base. R3 scores easily. R2 is thrown out at the plate for the third out. The catcher then throws to first base for a fourth out on the batter-runner.
RULING: This would be considered a live ball appeal. The out at first base would be considered an advantageous out for the defense and the very fact that they made the play would indicate their choice of this fourth out. Since the batter-runner was out on a force out at first base, R2Â’s run would not count. [my emphasis]

Hmmm....it seems now that even the NCAA says the BR is forced to 1B.

---

All codes in some way refer to the out at 1B as a force out or force play. Bottom line, a poorly worded definition is used, yet the out at 1B is treated as a force out (and obviously also referred to as one). ItÂ’s interesting to think of all those people that accept such examples from casebooks and authoritative opinion (and the OBR) as a citation proving an issue in regards to other matters, yet they are unwilling to accept the examples and AO's regarding this issue.

Here's the definition of a run:

A RUN (or SCORE) is the score made by an offensive player who advances from batter to runner and touches first, second, third and home bases in that order. [my emphasis]

So, by definition, do you not count runs when bases are not touched? Or do you accept the other rules, official interpretations, and authoritative opinions that clarify the definition and allow the run to score when the base is not touched if not appealed?

So, do you accept the cited rules, official interpretations, and authoritative opinions that cite 1B as being a base that a BR is forced to? If not, then why not? It's coming from the same sources telling you to score a run when the bases are not touched.

As you point out, Greymule, can anyone show:

1. Anywhere where the out at 1B is NOT treated as a force out?
   
2. Any example of how the out at 1B is treated any differently than any other forced base?

If it looks like it, smells like it, feels like it, sounds like it, and they tell me it is..........
then it is................


Just my opinion,

Freix

[greymule]

Great citations and reasoning, Freix. You have contributed more useful information to the world than have most Ph.D. theses.

It has all the qualities of a force, and all the books refers to it at some point as a force. I think a reasonable person could justifiably conclude . . .