Routine Situation and Odd Ruling

Had this presented to me last night, and after the discussion, I was just dumbfounded at the ruling. Reason for my dumbfoundedness: we had a thread about this, from the ASA code, and apparently there's a huge difference in the baserunning rules between ASA and USSSA.

R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, with no outs. Ball hit hard to F6, who is close enough to R1 to tag him while he's still standing on the bag. F6 does NOT touch 2B, but rather throws to 1B retiring the batter-runner while R2 is still on the bag. F3 then tags R2. How many outs do you have? (This actually came up in an USSSA slow-pitch game, so our local UIC called national to get a ruling)

From our previous thread, I had said there's two outs, R1 on the tag, and the batter-runner on the force, and R2 is safe because the force was lost before he was tagged. Before I tell you the ruling we got from the USSSA national office on this, I want to see what you all have to say. I'll wait till later today before I post the answer I got from our UIC during his phone call.

[RKBUmp]

I have the same as you. Unless they had tagged the runner at 1st before they stepped on the bag, the force was removed the second the batter/runner was put out and the runner is now legally entitled to 1st base.

[NCASAUmp]

Not having called U-Trip since 1996, take my word for its weight in gold (meaning: nothing). I can't imagine any rulebook that would rule any other way than what you described, given the situation as you described it. Once the BR is retired, all force plays are off in this situation.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

...there's two outs, R1 on the tag, and the batter-runner on the force, and R2 is safe because the force was lost before he was tagged.

The U-Trip ruling must be different than that or there would be no reason for your post! I can't imagine why they would have any ruling other than exactly what you have- two outs on the play and R2 safe at first base.

There might be some miscommunication somewhere, which can happen with a somewhat complicated play. Even your brief description had me scratching my head and re-reading the play- it says that F6 fielded the ball "close enough to tag" R1, but doesn't actually say he was tagged! Then you get to the end and it says "R1 was out on the tag", so you imply he was tagged and that changes the whole call if someone assumes he wasn't tagged reading the initial description.

Maybe the "official" USSSA ruling really is different- it wouldn't be the only strange rule in their rule book. If it is, then they are the "odd man out" in not just the softball, but also the baseball universe!

[Dakota]

My guess is the different ruling from U-trip national was a result of a misunderstanding / miscommunication. I can't imagine otherwise.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

My guess is the different ruling from U-trip national was a result of a misunderstanding / miscommunication. I can't imagine otherwise.

That is what I am thinking.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

That is what I am thinking.

My GUESS is that if the U-trip ruling is different is may be because somewhere along the way the right person talked someone into a "we shouldn't reward R2 for not running" ruling and someone else thought it was a good idea to have such a rule keeping the force in place even though the trailing runner was retired. Or it could be due to miscommunication.

OK, so far we are all in agreement. Now, to make it interesting, what do you all THINK the ruling is? I'll post the "correct" (in USSSA's eyes) answer later after you've all had your chance to be crazy over this.