Abandonment (BRD example play)
 

I had the need to look up something regarding abandonment and got out the BRD (2014 edition).

Play 263-451 on p.270.

It's an OBR example and says the following:

R1, R3, 1 out, 2-2, top of ninth. B1 hits weakly to the second baseman, who swipes at R1, then throws to first in time for what he thinks is an inning-ending double play. R3, running on contact, touches the plate before the "tag" of R1. The umpire calls R1 safe, but the runner, thinking he is out, heads for his position in center field. Now the umpire calls out R1. Ruling: R1 is out for abandonment. That out should be signaled by the umpire, who will also score the run. But if the defense appeals, the out at second becomes a force out, and the run will not count.

I assume the appeal is that R1 "missed" 2nd base. But, that would not be a force play because the batter-runner was put out at 1st. That removes the force. Now it's a timing play. The run should count.

Am I missing something?

I have argued ad nauseam elsewhere that this appeal is not a valid appeal. There was no appealable infraction; you can't miss a base you never reached.

I hadn't thought of that angle. That would be another reason that the run should score.

But, would you agree that, even if you could appeal, it certainly wouldn't be a force play as stated in the BRD example play? At the time of the appeal, the batter-runner had already been retired prior to reaching 1st.

Merkle.

Makes sense to me. In fact, an argument could be made that R1 had every right to return to first base after the BR was put out. So an appeal that he should have advanced and touched second is bogus, in my mind.

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.

Others have had success in writing Carl and asking about other points.

Well, I think the abandonment call is still correct if R1 goes wandering off as described. In the umpire's judgment, if he is no longer intent on running the bases and is proceeding toward his dugout or defensive position, thinking he is either out or the inning is over - it's abandonment.

R1's abandonment occurs after R3 scores. Therefore, the run scores.

I'm not debating the abandonment call. What I'm pointing out is that an appeal for R1 failing to touch second is bogus because he was not required to advance to second after the BR was put out. Before he was appropriately ruled out for abandonment, he had every right to return to first base. So how can there be an appeal at second for a force out??

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 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.

I agree with that.

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?

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.

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 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...