Interference and force out

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

In the past in dealing with situations of controversy, ASA has tended to go with the letter of the rule. This is, if I was placing a bet, I'd bet that if ASA issued an official ruling on this, they would apply the interference rule. IMO, that would be a wrong interpretation, but it would narrowly follow the letter of the rule.

Until that eventuality, however, on the field, I would rule the OP (and my variations) to be force outs.

1.FORCE OUT: An out which may be made only when a runner loses the right to the base the runner is occupying because the batter becomes a batter-runner, and before the batter-funner or a trailing runner has been put out.

5.5.B No run shall be scored if the third out of the inning is the result of:
1. A batter-runner being called out prior to reaching first base of any other runner "forced out" due to the batter becoming a batter-runner.

Please note it says if the runner is forced out. The runner is NOT being ruled out due to being forced, but because of an INT call which would have been made whether it was a forced runner or not.

I don't think there is anything "narrow" about it.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...The runner is NOT being ruled out due to being forced, but because of an INT call which would have been made whether it was a forced runner or not.

I don't think there is anything "narrow" about it.

Same can be said in many cases with a tag. Take the OP situation, but instead of the runner picking up the ball, the fielder does and tags the runner. The runner is out because he thought the ball was foul and was meandering back to base. He would have been out whether or not he was forced because he was off the base when tagged. Exempting a runner from the force out due to an infraction by the runner while off the base due to being forced off the base is a narrow (and wrong for the game) interpretation. JMO, of course.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Same can be said in many cases with a tag. Take the OP situation, but instead of the runner picking up the ball, the fielder does and tags the runner. The runner is out because he thought the ball was foul and was meandering back to base. He would have been out whether or not he was forced because he was off the base when tagged. Exempting a runner from the force out due to an infraction by the runner while off the base due to being forced off the base is a narrow (and wrong for the game) interpretation. JMO, of course.

But RS #21 covers that the defense may tag the runner or tag the base to get a force out.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

But RS #21 covers that the defense may tag the runner or tag the base to get a force out.

Yes, I know. I was countering Mike's argument that the runner would have been out even if there was no force, hence it is not a force. I wasn't arguing that a tag is not a force in a force situation. Quite the opposite.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Yes, I know. I was countering Mike's argument that the runner would have been out even if there was no force, hence it is not a force. I wasn't arguing that a tag is not a force in a force situation. Quite the opposite.

Well, yeah, you were. No tag of the base or player, no out, yet the runner is still forced which is why you can even tag the forced runner for an out while in contact with a base. IOW, you must tag either the base or player to effect the force out.

INT with a batted ball, out. Any force is irrelevant.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, yeah, you were. No tag of the base or player, no out, yet the runner is still forced which is why you can even tag the forced runner for an out while in contact with a base. IOW, you must tag either the base or player to effect the force out.

INT with a batted ball, out. Any force is irrelevant.

Which was my point from the beginning - score the run, call R2 out, award BR 1B, end the inning, play ball.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, yeah, you were. No tag of the base or player, no out, yet the runner is still forced which is why you can even tag the forced runner for an out while in contact with a base. IOW, you must tag either the base or player to effect the force out.

INT with a batted ball, out. Any force is irrelevant.

No, I wasn't. As I said, the opposite. If a runner who is tagged off the base is a force (even if not paying attention is the reason he is able to be tagged), so should a runner in a force situation who commits an infraction so to be declared out be considered a force out for scoring of runs, etc.

So, by what you say, with a runner on 3B and 2 outs, any other runner who is forced should be tackling the fielder once R1 crosses home.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No, I wasn't. As I said, the opposite. If a runner who is tagged off the base is a force (even if not paying attention is the reason he is able to be tagged), so should a runner in a force situation who commits an infraction so to be declared out be considered a force out for scoring of runs, etc.

Okay, citations please.

So, by what you say, with a runner on 3B and 2 outs, any other runner who is forced should be tackling the fielder once R1 crosses home.

Where did anyone say such a thing? However, if the run is scored, what possible affect can INT have on that play? If the play takes that long, maybe the defense should have thrown the ball home in an effort to stop the run.

Why is it that so many people feel a need to "protect" one team or the other instead of just administering the rules under which BOTH teams agreed to play?