Co-ed Missed Base

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

But that's just it. R2 is forced to advance because the batter became a batter-runner. R2 no longer has the right to occupy his base because of this, and therefore, I believe this is a force out.

Think about what you just said, I see it as the key to this situation.

The batter becoming a batter-runner works for one base with me. After passing first, is that the batter becoming a batter-runner, or isn't that individual now a runner?

Bottom line to me, no such thing as a two base force out. Required to advance because the batter got a two base award is not a force out in my book. Timing play.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Think about what you just said, I see it as the key to this situation.

The batter becoming a batter-runner works for one base with me. After passing first, is that the batter becoming a batter-runner, or isn't that individual now a runner?

Bottom line to me, no such thing as a two base force out. Required to advance because the batter got a two base award is not a force out in my book. Timing play.

I understand, and I'm focusing on 8-5-A:

When forced to vacate a base because the batter was awarded a base on balls.

R2 is forced to vacate his/her base. Their word.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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

8.1. THE BATTER BECOMES A BATTER-RUNNER
C. When four balls have been called by the umpire. The batter-runner is awarded first base
Effect
4. (Co-ed) The ball is dead. A walk to a male batter will result in a two base award. The next batter (a female) shall bat.

Don't disagree this doesn't seem right, but would it be a force out the runner started on 1B and missed 2B on the way to 3B? If so, what's the difference? Remember, we are only talking about a player forced to vacate a base and not touching the base to which she is forced.

As Dave said, it is the way the rule is written and I don't think it would be wrong to treat this as a force. Especially since a protest would have the weight of the rule behind it.