Force out at 1B

[greymule]

In the past I have been upbraided on this board for casually using the term force out to describe an out made by the batter runner at 1B. I knew the difference but did my penance anyway.

Now I find, in 8-7-G: "If the runner put out is the batter-runner at first base, or any other runner forced to advance because the batter became a batter-runner, this is a force out.

Incidentally, when looking up interference by the catcher on an attempted squeeze play, I see that it's covered in (FP/MP) 6-5-C. However, there is no 6-5-C in either FP or MP. Anybody know what happened to it?

I also notice that although the "about to receive" wording was removed from POE #13, it remains in 8-7-Q in the form of "about to catch a thrown ball" and is subsequently termed "interference." Is there any significance to that, or did they simply neglect to delete the words?

[Edited by greymule on Feb 18th, 2004 at 03:32 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
In the past I have been upbraided on this board for casually using the term force out to describe an out made by the batter runner at 1B. I knew the difference but did my penance anyway.

Now I find, in 8-7-G: "If the runner put out is the batter-runner at first base, or any other runner forced to advance because the batter became a batter-runner, this is a force out.

You would never receive an argument from me. I have no problem with referring to the play on the BR as a force out just because it doesn't fall under rule 1's definition. The reason it is noted as a force out in this paragraph is for purposes of differentiating a "force out" as opposed to a "time play" on an appeal in relation to allowing runs to score if it is the final out of the inning or game.

Incidentally, when looking up interference by the catcher on an attempted squeeze play, I see that it's covered in (FP/MP) 6-5-C. However, there is no 6-5-C in either FP or MP. Anybody know what happened to it?

ASA 8.D.4.b

I also notice that although the "about to receive" wording was removed from POE #13, it remains in 8-7-Q in the form of "about to catch a thrown ball" and is subsequently termed "interference." Is there any significance to that, or did they simply neglect to delete the words?

When a rule change is submitted, the author is to include all sections which would be affected by the proposed change. Apparently, this one was missed. However, it is not totally incorrect as it reads. Just because a fielder is in a position to be called for obstruction does NOT place a target on him or give the runner absolution if he intentionally crashes into that fielder.

[greymule]

You would never receive an argument from me. I have no problem with referring to the play on the BR as a force out just because it doesn't fall under rule 1's definition.

It doesn't bother me, either. The baseboard board has some particular sticklers about this point, though. On the other hand, another baseball poster did point out that no one has been able to cite a situation in which differentiating between a force out and an out made by the BR before reaching 1B would make any difference in how a play was called.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by greymule
I
Incidentally, when looking up interference by the catcher on an attempted squeeze play, I see that it's covered in (FP/MP) 6-5-C. However, there is no 6-5-C in either FP or MP. Anybody know what happened to it?



[Edited by greymule on Feb 18th, 2004 at 03:32 PM]

greymule,

You know catchers do not interfer! They obstruct.
Rule in 2003 Book is as Mike pointed out 8-1D4.b

[greymule]

You know catchers do not interfer! They obstruct.

I know, but the rule book lists it as "interference by the catcher on an attempted squeeze play" (as well as under obstruction). Incidentally, the MLB baseball rule book calls it "catcher's interference."

A search of my old rule books shows that the part that is now 8-1-D-4-b was once 6-5-C.

(Rule book is hyphens, case book is periods, right?)

[Roger Greene]

Originally posted by greymule
In the past I have been upbraided on this board for casually using the term force out to describe an out made by the batter runner at 1B. I knew the difference but did my penance anyway.

]

Greymule,
I would not upbraid you, but with your comments about the specifics of language I'm suprised on your take on this.

I agree that most of us know the difference, and it doesn't cause problems.

But to the untrained it can. The confusion about the apeal for a runner leaving a base too early on a caught fly becomes a "force" and now, does the run score? Of course "we" know, but we have caused a problem to the untrained.

Likewise the "dropped" third strike instead of an uncaught third strike causes problems.

I realize it is convienent to use the words force out instead of the B-R being out at first, and will note that even the Case Books often resort to that shorthand.

I have even seen that cause problems in an extended discussion of the B-R being "forced" to run to 1st, and if a 4th out appeal is possible after the third out because the B-R did not touch 1st but instead went directly to her dugout or defensive position! (And even the current Fed book that "forgets" to state how to put the B-R out by rule!!!)

The Apostle Paul admonished the early Christians not to be stumbling blocks to the unbelievers, and it might be good for umpires to avoid being stumbling blocks to the coaches & fans. Just my thoughts.

Roger Greene

[greymule]

Thanks for your comments, Roger. We certainly do not want to add to the already considerable confusion among coaches, players, and fans by throwing terminology around sloppily.

I still don't know, however, how it could make any difference if we considered a batter out before reaching 1B a force out. Maybe there is a case, though. Of course, appeals for leaving too soon on a fly ball must not be called force plays, since they are time plays and incorrect terminology would be confusing.

I guess my comment about penance was answered well with a reference to St. Paul. I enjoyed the analogy, as did my father, who has taught at Princeton Theological Seminary for the past 50 years.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene

The Apostle Paul admonished the early Christians not to be stumbling blocks to the unbelievers, and it might be good for umpires to avoid being stumbling blocks to the coaches & fans. Just my thoughts.

Roger Greene

Paul?...Paul? Oh, I remember him. Wasn't he one of those parents who would get real nasty toward the umpires and opponents from behind the backstop? After a while, he took over as coach and was just as ornery and abusive in that position.

I understand that he got tossed so often, he gave up coaching and tried to become an umpire.

I hear his conversion went well and he might get a national this year. His only problem now is a weakness he shares with his buddy. Peter and Paul have some type of self-control deficiency when it comes to coconut and chocolate.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Paul?...Paul? Oh, I remember him. Wasn't he one of those parents who would get real nasty toward the umpires and opponents from behind the backstop? After a while, he took over as coach and was just as ornery and abusive in that position.

I understand that he got tossed so often, he gave up coaching and tried to become an umpire.

I hear his conversion went well and he might get a national this year. His only problem now is a weakness he shares with his buddy. Peter and Paul have some type of self-control deficiency when it comes to coconut and chocolate.

Very funny! I was with ya on this analogy in figuring out who was who


.... until you got to the coconut and chocolate, and that one just knocked me all the way to Mars!