Force out at 1B?
 

We all know that a put-out of the batter-runner at 1B is not a force out. Or do we?

For 60 years the ASA rule stated that a batter-runner was put out by tagging with the ball, or by tagging the base. Now it just says that the B-R is legally put out before reaching 1B. It is assumed that we automatically know how to get the B-R out. But old or new rule, the word "force" doesn't exist.

A Runner off base can be put out by being tagged with the ball, or by tagging the base on a "force" play.

We don't score a run on the 3rd out of the inning if the B-R is put out prior to 1B, or another runner is forced. Obviously there is a difference in rules for a B-R and a Runner, and there is no "force out" on a B-R.

BUT . . . . . . . .

Take a look at ASA double first base rules and you see the word "force" at 1B. ASA test #24 says that a put-out at 1B is a "force play."

So - is a put-out at 1B a force out? Or is this just bad typing?

WMB

Yes, and this caused a big nasty argument on test day on which I was the ONLY person who insisted there was no correct answer, specifically because of the use of the term "force out."

I hope you guys put as much into the game as you do here.

For as long as I can remember, the term "force" or "force out" has been used on tests, in clinics and general discussion as a matter of convenience and I think both of you know that.

It's no different than either of you using the term "BR rounded 1B" or the "BR was put out sliding into 2B", both of which we all know is not possible.

I see your point. However, I believe it was the 2002 or 2003 test that I missed exactly one question on - and it was because I assumed that throwing the BR out at first WAS a force out, and within the framework of the question, it wasn't.

When you spend so many years taking tests that are designed to trick you by wordsmithing (not just ASA, but Fed, NCAA, football, softball, baseball, you name it), you pick up on such an anomaly and your brain immediately knows it when it sees it.

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.

Uh, why is it not possible for the BR to round 1B or to be put out sliding into 2B? By NFHS rules the BR remains such until playing action ends. Is it different under other codes?

Speaking ASA

A batter-runner is no longer a batter-runner once retired or reaches 1B safely.

I have the same question as Dakota - Is there an actual game situation where the distinction matters?

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.

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.

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.

Thanks, Steve. That answered my question.

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.

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.

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