Abandonment (BRD example play)

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It might all get back to when a force is removed for a runner who misses a base -- as I recall there was some discussion to the effect that (in some codes), a runner who was forced at the start of the play was still "forced" if he was declared out for missing a base.

There used to be. I think now all agree that the status of the runner at the time of the infraction is the governing factor. (Is there any way to make that sentence clearer?)

[David Emerling]

I emailed Carl about this play, questioning both whether an appeal can legally be made and whether the force was removed.

His answer:

This is left over from Jaksa/Roder. It's one of the few "interps" of their I keep. An umpire must have some logical underpinning for decisions he makes where the rules are ambiguous. While I've generally removed all influence of J/R from the BRD, this one seemed so logical I couldn't throw it out. What you say, though, is pertinent. You might come up with some other treatment. If you do, I suggest you use 9.01c as your citation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Matt

There used to be. I think now all agree that the status of the runner at the time of the infraction is the governing factor. (Is there any way to make that sentence clearer?)

I agree with that.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Matt

There used to be. I think now all agree that the status of the runner at the time of the infraction is the governing factor. (Is there any way to make that sentence clearer?)

When you say "the time of the infraction", in this case, that would be the time of the appeal?

What "infraction" are you referring to?

There are two issues here:
1) Can an appeal be made that R1 "missed" 2nd?
2) And, if so, is it a force play?

[MD Longhorn]

If the runner ran straight to center field, he did not MISS 2nd base.

If the runner ran to THIRD, and was then appealed at 2nd, then he missed 2nd base. And in OBR interpretations (generally) the status of the runner at the time of the miss is what we go by - so a run would not count.

A more interesting argument could be made if this happened to be our left fielder... is it now a miss of 2nd?

The OP? I see no way to wipe this run off the board.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

And in OBR interpretations (generally) the status of the runner at the time of the miss is what we go by - so a run would not count.

I guess the question would be this: When did the "miss" (of the base) occur in relation to the force play being erased?

Are you saying the following?

If R1 missed 2nd (presumably on his way to 3rd or simply overrunning the base) prior to BR being retired, a subsequent appeal would be considered a force play. R3's run would not count.

If R1 missed 2nd after BR was retired, a subsequent appeal would not be considered a force play. R3's run counts.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I guess the question would be this: When did the "miss" (of the base) occur in relation to the force play being erased?

Are you saying the following?

If R1 missed 2nd (presumably on his way to 3rd or simply overrunning the base) prior to BR being retired, a subsequent appeal would be considered a force play. R3's run would not count.

If R1 missed 2nd after BR was retired, a subsequent appeal would not be considered a force play. R3's run counts.

I am saying that ... at least in OBR.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

A more interesting argument could be made if this happened to be our left fielder... is it now a miss of 2nd?

The criteria for abandonment is somewhat subjective and is a judgement call on the part of the umpire.

Is the runner still attempting to run the bases?

If the answer is no, then it's probably abandonment.

If, in the umpire's opinion, the wandering runner is heading out to his position in left field, I do not think it is relevant that he "passed" 2nd base and I think you can argue that he did not miss it, rather, he never attempted to obtain the base in the first place.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

The criteria for abandonment is somewhat subjective and is a judgement call on the part of the umpire.

Is the runner still attempting to run the bases?

If the answer is no, then it's probably abandonment.

If, in the umpire's opinion, the wandering runner is heading out to his position in left field, I do not think it is relevant that he "passed" 2nd base and I think you can argue that he did not miss it, rather, he never attempted to obtain the base in the first place.

A valid point. And I think this is where I'd lean, generally. But I can see the other side.

If a sliding runner had a tag attempt made on him and he thought he was out, so aborted his slide and overran 2nd, and then seeing the out at first began jogging to the outfield ... when did the abandonment occur, and did he "pass" 2nd base before that? Maybe.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

When you say "the time of the infraction", in this case, that would be the time of the appeal?

What "infraction" are you referring to?

I always believed the "time of the infraction" was simply the moment that the runner failed to do what he was supposed to do.

R1, R3, one out. Suicide squeeze. Batter bunts the ball in front of home plate. F2 fields the ball, tags the BR, then throws to second to play on R1, and the ball goes into center field. R1 misses second on his way to third. An appeal is made that the runner missed second. At the "time of the infraction", the BR was already out, so his miss of second was not a force. R3's run scores.

R1, R3, one out. Suicide squeeze. Batter bunts the ball in front of home plate. F2 fields the ball, and throws to first base. The ball goes past F3, but F9 is backing up the throw, and he throws out the BR at second. R1 goes all the way to third on the play, missing second. An appeal is made that the runner missed second. At the "time of the infraction", the BR was still viable, so R1 was still forced when he missed the bag. R3's run does not score.

Or am I wrong here? Now I'm beginning to doubt myself...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I always believed the "time of the infraction" was simply the moment that the runner failed to do what he was supposed to do.

R1, R3, one out. Suicide squeeze. Batter bunts the ball in front of home plate. F2 fields the ball, tags the BR, then throws to second to play on R1, and the ball goes into center field. R1 misses second on his way to third. An appeal is made that the runner missed second. At the "time of the infraction", the BR was already out, so his miss of second was not a force. R3's run scores.

R1, R3, one out. Suicide squeeze. Batter bunts the ball in front of home plate. F2 fields the ball, and throws to first base. The ball goes past F3, but F9 is backing up the throw, and he throws out the BR at second. R1 goes all the way to third on the play, missing second. An appeal is made that the runner missed second. At the "time of the infraction", the BR was still viable, so R1 was still forced when he missed the bag. R3's run does not score.

Or am I wrong here? Now I'm beginning to doubt myself...

All that seems correct to me -- if the runner was forced when he missed the base, then any subsequent appeal is a force out.

AT ONE TIME there was discussion / interp that if the runner was forced at the start of the play, then the force would be removed if the runner was put out, but NOT removed if the runner was declared out.

So, under this AT ONE TIME interp, in your first play above, if F2's throw had retired R1, then it's not a force. But when F2's throw goes wild, and R1 advances to third missing second, any subsequent appeal would be a force out.