Runs Scored

[NCASAUmp]

R1 scores. The out on R2 is not a force out, as a trailing runner (R3) had already been declared out.

You can never, ever have a force out on a runner when a runner who's trailing them has already been declared out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

ASA RS#1.J Last Sentence......

"On an appeal play, the force out is determined by when the appeal is made, not when the infraction occurred."

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

ASA RS#1.J Last Sentence......

"On an appeal play, the force out is determined by when the appeal is made, not when the infraction occurred."

Speakin ASA.

[MrRabbit]

Then the call is the same for ASA and NFHS?

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

Then the call is the same for ASA and NFHS?

I just had an extremely long conversation with a well respected baseball and softball rules interpreter and author.

Here's what I confirmed/learned.

Check your 2004 ASA rule book, if you still have one laying around. ASA changed their interpretation of the definition of a force as it pertained to an appeal play. Another person already quoted it as follows: "On an appeal play, the force out is determined when the appeal is made, not when the infraction occurred."

Prior to 2004, that was not ASA's rule/interpretation.

Only ASA (among all softball codes) has adopted this definition/interpretation.

Consequently, in ASA, the run does score.

However, in all other codes, including NFHS and NCAA, the run does NOT score. They keep the "retroactive" force play.

I'm sure this will create some controversy, but that's the interpretation. MLB is currently discussing possibly changing their interpretation as well.

There are some case plays that illustrate why ASA has gone with this interpretation, but I'll leave them out for now.

Fire away

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I just had an extremely long conversation with a well respected baseball and softball rules interpreter and author.

Here's what I confirmed/learned.

Check your 2004 ASA rule book, if you still have one laying around. ASA changed their interpretation of the definition of a force as it pertained to an appeal play. Another person already quoted it as follows: "On an appeal play, the force out is determined when the appeal is made, not when the infraction occurred."

Prior to 2004, that was not ASA's rule/interpretation.

Only ASA (among all softball codes) has adopted this definition/interpretation.

Consequently, in ASA, the run does score.

However, in all other codes, including NFHS and NCAA, the run does NOT score. They keep the "retroactive" force play.

I'm sure this will create some controversy, but that's the interpretation. MLB is currently discussing possibly changing their interpretation as well.

There are some case plays that illustrate why ASA has gone with this interpretation, but I'll leave them out for now.

Fire away

You are correct I got the same explanation from a high place person.

ASA waits until the defense appeals and makes the ruling from that point in time. So the run scores from third.

NFHS Keep the "retroactive" force play. So the run from third does not
score.

[MrRabbit]

There are some case plays that illustrate why ASA has gone with this interpretation, but I'll leave them out for now.

I for one would like to see a list of them.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I just had an extremely long conversation with a well respected baseball and softball rules interpreter and author.

Here's what I confirmed/learned.

Check your 2004 ASA rule book, if you still have one laying around. ASA changed their interpretation of the definition of a force as it pertained to an appeal play. Another person already quoted it as follows: "On an appeal play, the force out is determined when the appeal is made, not when the infraction occurred."

Prior to 2004, that was not ASA's rule/interpretation.

Well, not really. Prior to 2004 the same RS (POE, at that time) read, "If the batter-runner is put out, or is the first out of multiple outs on the same play, this would eliminate all force outs".

So, actually, if the BR was retired prior to the appeal, there is not force out to be had In 2004, they ADDED "On an appeal play, the force out is determined when the appeal is made, not when the infraction occurred". This wording basically expanded the interpretation to include any situation where the forced has been relieved prior to the appeal.

And, to me, it makes sense. During a live ball, the force is always relieved anytime a trailing runner is retired. Why wouldn't it be the same on a dead ball appeal?

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, not really. Prior to 2004 the same RS (POE, at that time) read, "If the batter-runner is put out, or is the first out of multiple outs on the same play, this would eliminate all force outs".

So, actually, if the BR was retired prior to the appeal, there is not force out to be had In 2004, they ADDED "On an appeal play, the force out is determined when the appeal is made, not when the infraction occurred". This wording basically expanded the interpretation to include any situation where the forced has been relieved prior to the appeal.

And, to me, it makes sense. During a live ball, the force is always relieved anytime a trailing runner is retired. Why wouldn't it be the same on a dead ball appeal?

Not arguing that is why I posted it after it was ask of me on the NFHS side.
NFHS does it and it is what I thought I would find in ASA but did not.
So why not on a dead ball in ASA?
Hopefully it can be explained or changed if necessary?
Looking to hear more and learn.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, not really. Prior to 2004 the same RS (POE, at that time) read, "If the batter-runner is put out, or is the first out of multiple outs on the same play, this would eliminate all force outs".

No. ASA added the new language in order to change the rule application. Prior to 2004, ASA's interpretation was the same as NHSF & NCAA.

Doing what ASA does when it doesn't want to give a lengthly explanation for something, they just highlighted it without really addressing it.

Someone once asked me (perhaps it was you) about my accusation that ASA changes rules or interpretations without really addressing them. Here's an example.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

R1 scores. The out on R2 is not a force out, as a trailing runner (R3) had already been declared out.

You can never, ever have a force out on a runner when a runner who's trailing them has already been declared out.

Except for helmet removal.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Except for helmet removal.

Good catch there. Forgot about that one.

[SamG]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

R1 scores. The out on R2 is not a force out, as a trailing runner (R3) had already been declared out.

You can never, ever have a force out on a runner when a runner who's trailing them has already been declared out.

But even if R2 IS a force out, the run (R1) would still score, wouldn't it? Let's change the situation a little...
Bases loaded, one out.
Ground ball to F6... she throws to F5 for the force on R2.
F5 sees R3 making it to 2nd, so tries to make a play on B/R at first.
B/R is safe and F3 throws back to F5 who tags R3 trying to steal.

There's still three outs and R1 still scores. So why does the timing matter (in the OP)? What am I missing?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by SamG

But even if R2 IS a force out, the run (R1) would still score, wouldn't it?

Nope.

Originally Posted by SamG

Let's change the situation a little...
Bases loaded, one out.
Ground ball to F6... she throws to F5 for the force on R2.
F5 sees R3 making it to 2nd, so tries to make a play on B/R at first.
B/R is safe and F3 throws back to F5 who tags R3 trying to steal.

There's still three outs and R1 still scores. So why does the timing matter (in the OP)? What am I missing?

What difference does it make the order in which the outs were attempted?

ASA 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 or any other runner forced out due to the batter becoming a batter-runner.

They can throw the ball around all they want, but if the third out is a force out, no runs may score.

Make sense?

[SamG]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Nope.



What difference does it make the order in which the outs were attempted?


They can throw the ball around all they want, but if the third out is a force out, no runs may score.

Make sense?

I understand that. I guess what I missed was how R2 missing the bag would be considered a 'force out', which from the PP, I understand it's not. It's only if it WAS a force out (and happened AFTER R3 was out, which is impossible) would the run not count.

OK, that sentence doesn't make total sense, but I think I understand.