Runs Scored

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This non-responsive post makes absolutely no sense other than to create a strawman argument. Answer the question. Please explain the statement that was in the POE prior to 2004 if it wasn't for any other purpose that to state that there can be no "force out" on an appeal if the BR is retired on a play with multiple outs.

I don't think you can.

Think of this, EsqUmp. How can the BR be out (by definition) any time NOT prior to reaching first?? If after reaching first, isn't that individual no longer a BR, now a runner?? Any time a BR is out, if that is the 3rd out (or a 4th out appeal), no run can score. Period, ever.

Anytime a BR is out, and that is NOT a 3rd out, then there can be no other force after (chronologically) THAT (on the BR) out; because all forces are removed when a trailing runner is out. Even on appeal. So runs scored in advance of the 3rd out must score.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Think of this, EsqUmp. How can the BR be out (by definition) any time NOT prior to reaching first?? If after reaching first, isn't that individual no longer a BR, now a runner?? Any time a BR is out, if that is the 3rd out (or a 4th out appeal), no run can score. Period, ever.

Anytime a BR is out, and that is NOT a 3rd out, then there can be no other force after (chronologically) THAT (on the BR) out; because all forces are removed when a trailing runner is out. Even on appeal. So runs scored in advance of the 3rd out must score.

I'm not necessarily stating that I think that one interpretation is more logical than the next. I have an opinion as to that, but haven't expressed it.

All that I am saying is what the interpretation is. ASA rules differently than NFHS and NCAA.

[MrRabbit]

First I do understand ASA's interpretation as written on how to call this...

But I ask you to think about this...

AltUmpSteve posted...

"Think of this, EsqUmp. How can the BR be out (by definition) any time NOT prior to reaching first?? If after reaching first, isn't that individual no longer a BR, now a runner?? Any time a BR is out, if that is the 3rd out (or a 4th out appeal), no run can score. Period, ever."

"Anytime a BR is out, and that is NOT a 3rd out, then there can be no other force after (chronologically) THAT (on the BR) out; because all forces are removed when a trailing runner is out. Even on appeal. So runs scored in advance of the 3rd out must score."


Irish posted...

"When it comes down to multiple decisions on a single play, are we not usually told to address each portion(s) of the play in the order in which each occurred? Question would be, I guess, would you address the missed base or the appeal first."

I ask then...

Is it wrong in thinking the appeal of the missed base is the defense's way of asking for a ruling on the force?

I also ask...

Then why would a trailing runner ( runner from first ) being thrown out at third over ride a force ( runner from second missing third) the force violation, when it happen before the runner from first being thrown out?
Would this not be awarding the offense and letting them score a run and take away the defense's chance to keep a run from scoring?

Just something to think about on what the did or did not think about when decided on this ruling.

I would hope that it is brought back up to be reconsidered.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

Is it wrong in thinking the appeal of the missed base is the defense's way of asking for a ruling on the force?

A "force" is not an infraction. The request is for the missed base.

I also ask...

Then why would a trailing runner ( runner from first ) being thrown out at third over ride a force ( runner from second missing third) the force violation, when it happen before the runner from first being thrown out?
Would this not be awarding the offense and letting them score a run and take away the defense's chance to keep a run from scoring?

I don't see this as rewarding the offense. The defense opted to make a play on a trailing runner and possibly didn't even consider a play on R2, so I cannot read any advantage gained by a simple mistake of missing the base.