OBR 12 and 238

[greymule]

BRD 238 makes clear that a following runner being put out during continuing action does not remove the force on a preceding runner who missed the base he was forced to (1) in Fed and OBR, at the time he missed it, and (2) in NCAA, at the time of the pitch. It also makes clear that in Fed and OBR, the force is removed if a preceding runner is put out before the baserunning error.

Now take the following play (BRD 14-12): Bases loaded, 1 out: B1 triples. R1 misses 2B, and B1 misses 1B. The defense first appeals B1; the umpire upholds the appeal. Then the defense appeals R1; again the umpire upholds the appeal.

From BRD 238, I assumed that the order of appeals did not matter, since R1 was forced to 2B at the time he missed it (or in NCAA, at the time of the pitch). So whether out number 3 was a force at 2B or the BR before reaching 1B, no run could score. However, as Roger Greene pointed out to me, BRD says that R3's run counts. "The defense appealed in the wrong order. When B1 became the second out, the subsequent out on R1 at second was not a force out. To cancel the run the defense needed to appeal R1 before appealing B1." So out on appeal removes the force, out during continuing action does not.

In their ruling, BRD neglected to say that (if the defense appealed in the wrong order) R2's run would also have to count.

So do I finally have this straight?

[Roger Greene]

Yes. If the first appeal is on the BR at 1st base, then the 3rd out at second base is a time play.

Roger Greene

[Bfair]

As I posted on a different board, Greymule, you have to be careful in reading The BRD and differentiating author opinion from fact.

That is, while the author reports Official interpretation 13-12 provided by the PBUC and Official Interpretation 136-238 from Fitzpatrick (PBUC), he doesn't report that the play you reference (Play 14-12) nor its ruling has been confirmed by the PBUC. That is, the play appears designed by the author, not the PBUC. Since it's not reported that the PBUC blessed it, I'd not accept its ruling since the ruling of the play is in contradiction to Official Interpretation 136-238 as reported by The BRD.

Until this play is blessed by the PBUC (which perhaps might someday be reported), it appears to me as nothing more than another error within The BRD. It's not the first, and likely not the last [check section 350...LOL].

While The BRD remains an excellent source for highlighting differences between various sets of rules, the readers should be cautious of author interpretations sometimes well hidden within the book and which, at times, may be difficult to differentiate from baseball fact.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by greymule

So do I finally have this straight?

The order of the appeal is Important in OBR / FED.


Here's a FED case play to illusrate

Case Play 9.1.1A

R1,R2 - 1 out. B1 hits a long fly that appears to be uncatchable, but is caught by F8. R2 advances home but misses third base. R1 fails to re-touch first base and advances to third base.

Ruling:

If the defense appealed R1 not retouching first base - FIRST, Then R2's run counts since the third out of the inning was not the result of a Force out but a Time play.

If the defense appeals R2 missing third base FIRST then the run does not score because the third out of the inning was a force out.

Side Note: Under the old FED rule (No appeal umpire calls out runner(s) for missing bases), the Umpire would give the Defense the most advantageous out which would be R2. That's why the old rule IMO was the BEST appeal rule written.

Pete Booth

[greymule]

After appealing R1 for leaving 1B too soon, why couldn't the defense appeal R2 for missing 3B as the fourth out? They could certainly appeal R2 if they had doubled R1 off 1B in continuing action. If they are not allowed a fourth out on that play, then of course the order of appeals matters.

Your play is a good example, but I was well aware that order of appeals was crucial in some cases. The real question involved what would have happened had the batter doubled and missed 1B, with R2 scoring and R1 missing 2B. If the BR is put out at 2B on continuing action, then the appeal of R1 for missing 2B is still a force (R1 was forced at the time of the baserunning error) and R2 would not score. But if BR is put out on appeal for missing 1B, the force is off R1 for missing 2B and the run would score, at least according to an e-mail or phone call to BRD. (But see Freix's comments.)

[Thom Coste]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by greymule

So do I finally have this straight?

The order of the appeal is Important in OBR / FED.


Here's a FED case play to illusrate

Case Play 9.1.1A

R1,R2 - 1 out. B1 hits a long fly that appears to be uncatchable, but is caught by F8. R2 advances home but misses third base. R1 fails to re-touch first base and advances to third base.

Ruling:

If the defense appealed R1 not retouching first base - FIRST, Then R2's run counts since the third out of the inning was not the result of a Force out but a Time play.

If the defense appeals R2 missing third base FIRST then the run does not score because the third out of the inning was a force out.

Side Note: Under the old FED rule (No appeal umpire calls out runner(s) for missing bases), the Umpire would give the Defense the most advantageous out which would be R2. That's why the old rule IMO was the BEST appeal rule written.

Pete Booth

Do you have the 2003 CaseBook? I ask because that isn't what my 2002 CaseBook says. And I didn't find that change or correction on the NFHS website. And, you've mixed your R1 and R2.

Either way, your ruling is wrong. Any and all force plays were removed by the fielder making the catch. Neither R1 nor R2 is out on a force play. They are both out for committing a baserunning infractions - one missed base, one failure to tag up. Furthermore, the way I read 9-1-1 and 8-2-5 the defense is entitled to appeal in any order and select the out that gives them the best advantage, even when a force play is involved.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Thom Coste

Do you have the 2003 CaseBook? I ask because that isn't what my 2002 CaseBook says. And I didn't find that change or correction on the NFHS website. And, you've mixed your R1 and R2.

Either way, your ruling is wrong. Any and all force plays were removed by the fielder making the catch. Neither R1 nor R2 is out on a force play. They are both out for committing a baserunning infractions - one missed base, one failure to tag up. Furthermore, the way I read 9-1-1 and 8-2-5 the defense is entitled to appeal in any order and select the out that gives them the best advantage, even when a force play is involved.

First off I always renumber the runners using FED Case plays because they are confusing. R1 is R1 meaning the runner on first base r2, r3 etc. To me that is easier to understand. FED Case Plays use R1 on second and R2 on first so IMO I simplified it.

As far as your second comment goes, Yes I misread the play and was thinking about something else. My Bad. In any event the order of appeals Does matter.

Pete Booth

[Bfair]

To understand the ruling of "Order of Appeals" we should first look to the rule that needs clarification. From Rule 7.10 Notes, Approved Ruling 1:

Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent “fourth out.” If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during the play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage.
[my emphasis]

So, the question arises of what is meant by "more than one appeal during the play that ends a half-inning"?
While it certainly would include a 3rd out and any subsequent outs gained by appeal thereafter, would it also include appeals for the 2nd out of the inning if the 3rd out is then subsequently appealed during the same continuous play?
In other words, both outs are gained "during the play that ends a half-inning"?

So, the ruling of "Order of Appeals" reads:

OFF INTERP 13-12 PBUC STAFF: If the defense will make multiple appeals, when a force play situation is in effect, the appeals must be made "in the proper order."

Now, let's examine the following situation which would encompass the meaning of this ruling without infringing upon (and making assumptions about) other rulings provided the PBUC:

With bases loaded and 1 out, a force play situation is in effect when the ball is hit fair. The batter triples scoring all runners, but R2 failed to touch home, AND R1 fails to touch 2B while advancing home.
Assume now that both infractions are appealed and that the umpire upholds the appeals when made.......

Even though there has been "more than one appeal during the play that ends a half-inning", the PBUC ruling advises us that the order in which the defense makes the appeal can be a factor.

1. If the defense first appeals that R1 missed 2B and then appeals that R2 missed home, then R1 is the 2nd out of the inning and R2 is the 3rd out to end the inning. Since R2 is not a force out, then the run of R3 (a preceding runner) would count.
   
2. If the defense first appeals that R2 missed home then followed by their appeal of R1 missing 2B, then R1 is the final out and, being a force out (per ruling provided in The BRD Section 238), his out would negate the score of R3.

This play supports the ruling; and the ruling supports the play.
Order of appeals does matter. Without this ruling, the defense could legitimately claim under the appeal situation (1) above, that they elect the out of the BR to be the final out since it would be to their advantage (per rule 7.10) and since it was gained when "there is more than one appeal during the play that ends a half-inning."

---

The wording of the PBUC ruling provided us in Section 12 provides us nothing stating that it contradicts or supersedes their ruling in Section 238 (although The BRD author has apparently assumed that without reporting it). The official interpretation reported in Section 12 states nothing about removing a force on a runner---yet the author's example play provides that. The author should either correct his play or correct his reporting of the ruling of "Order of Appeals". One of the two must be in error based on how it is currently reported at this point in time.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[greymule]

Freix, should the need ever arise, I want you defending me in court.