Force out at 1B?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Are there ary situations where the distinction matters? (aside from correct answers to test question)...

I know of one where it might matter, but even then, I don't think it actually does.

A BR may not back up to avoid a tag, a runner may.

On a play from fair territory, the BR must use the colored portion of 1B if there is a play at 1B, the runner is not required to do so.

A BR may run through the bag to which they are advancing becoming a runner, a runner may not without placing themselves into jeopardy.

A BR can be ruled out for creating interference with a ball thrown to 1B without it being intentional, a runner must intentionally interfere with a thrown ball for INT to be ruled.

Just a couple off the top of my head.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

A BR may not back up to avoid a tag, a runner may.

On a play from fair territory, the BR must use the colored portion of 1B if there is a play at 1B, the runner is not required to do so.

A BR may run through the bag to which they are advancing becoming a runner, a runner may not without placing themselves into jeopardy.

A BR can be ruled out for creating interference with a ball thrown to 1B without it being intentional, a runner must intentionally interfere with a thrown ball for INT to be ruled.

Just a couple off the top of my head.

Sounds like you are addressing the distinction between a runner and a BR. I meant the distinction of whether the out at 1B is or is not a force out.

[AtlUmpSteve]

If the out at 1B was a force, it would save a few words in the rule about when a run scores on the third (or fourth) out. The only difference I can think of in your more specific question is that the batter-runner at first is not put back in jeopardy (like a force) if s/he returns past the base (at first, that would usually be thinking the ball was called foul, for example).

I, for one, would be perfectly happy if the definistion of a force play included the BR at 1B, and it was all more consistent. But, it isn't, as discussed on the NFHS board.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Sounds like you are addressing the distinction between a runner and a BR. I meant the distinction of whether the out at 1B is or is not a force out.

I responded to the following question:

Are there ary situations where the distinction matters?

Maybe the question should have been "is there any situation when the result of retiring the BR prior to reaching 1B is different than a runner forced to a base."

The answer to that, I believe, is no.

[pollywolly60]

Thanks, Steve. That answered my question.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I responded to the following question:

Are there ary situations where the distinction matters?

Maybe the question should have been "is there any situation when the result of retiring the BR prior to reaching 1B is different than a runner forced to a base."

The answer to that, I believe, is no.

Yeah, I realized that, so I clarified my question.

Steve's situation was the only one I could think of, and even that one does not make any difference since the BR has no base to return to, so even if the play on the BR at 1B was defined as a force, the reinstatement of the force rule would not apply.

[wadeintothem]

In some rule book in the future they will clarify 1B to be a force like they clarified BoB to not be "without liability to be put out".

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[WestMichBlue]

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