FYI,

Conducted our ASA State Umpire School yesterday. A member of the NUS gave a short "Pre-game and Game Control" lecture which included a reference to the play on the BR at 1B as a force out.

Though not included in the definition, the reference is used as a matter of communicating in a manner which the untrained/poorly trained understand the situation, results and ramifications.

Wade In: Nuance of words that means little except nit picking amongst ourselves and umpires -every 7 y/o T ball player knows that BR to 1B is a force out (ie touch base or tag); I certainly would never try to explain to a coach that the play at 1B wasnt a force because of lame rule wording that doesnt include that play.

Nit picking? Nuances? Lame Rule? Try explaining that to the coaches in a H.S. game last week in AK, which initiated this discussion.

Batter bunts, beats throw to 1B. Ball then goes to F1. B-R is told by 1B coach it was a foul ball and she crosses 1B heading back to home. Defensive coach yells for throw to 1B, which beats B-R who has now decided to get back on base. I won’t tell you what was called, but you make the call.

If a put-out at 1B is a force play, then the force was reinstated when the B-R went back past 1B and the defense needs only to tag the base before the B-R gets back. Which they did. So is the B-R out?

If a put-out at 1B is NOT a force play, the we simply have a runner off the base and she needs to be tagged with the ball. Which she was not. So is B-R safe?

You say every 7y/o knows this is a force out. Where did they get that? In every rulebook going back 70 + years, the term force out has never been used. It seems to occupy the same place in SB folklore as the “hands are part of the bat.”

Conversational, as Mike said. “Used as a matter of communicating.” But not a rule. And I think the ASA test is wrong when the supposedly correct answer states that a put-out at 1B is a force out.

WMB

Not necessarily so. The force is reinstated when the runner retreats toward the base previously occupied (Rule 1-Definitions, Force Out).

Therefore, BY THE WORDING OF THE RULE, this cannot apply since the former BR never "occupied" home. :)

By your contention, a runner from 1B forced to 2B who safely reaches 2B but over runs 2b is forced if they retreat back to 2b???

1B is a "undefined" force. You only need to tag the base and the BR is out. The definition SHOULD evolve to match the reality as so many other things have evolved in the rule book. (in the alternative you can always ask the 7 y/o TBall player).

The rule book writers got nothing else to do anyway.

BTW, a runner from 1B forced to 2b who over runs 2B after safely reaching it must be tagged out if they retreat.

So that SAME logic should apply to your instance... since its the SAME as a force... ie it aint.

You need to reread the play posted by WMB. The analagous situation at 2b is the runner passes 2b, crosses back over 2b and retreats towards 1b.

WMB is referring to a runner passing 2B and then retreating back to 2B and continuing to 1B.

I agree. There is more to the reinstatement of the force than merely retreating back from the base to which the runner was forced. The runner must have somewhere to retreat to (base previously occupied).

Therefore, even if the definition of force out included the play on the BR at 1B, the reinstatement of the force rule would still not apply.

Ouch. Taking your statement at face value (any time you need only tag a base should be a force), you just reinstituted one of the original myths in the game. Live ball appeals on tagging on fly balls or missed bases just became force outs, rather than timing plays.

Let's not go down that road, please.

Sorry bout that..

anyway - ASA Went there first

;)

I never considered live ball appeal to be neither a timing a play nor a force.

A timing play is when you determine whether someone scores as far as I know. But who knows.. yall make up all kinds of stuff.. like 1B isnt a force

lol