Runs Scored

[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.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by 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.

For example:

Would it be logical to apply a "retroactive" force out in the following play.

R3 on 3rd. R1 on 1st. 1 out. Ball hit to right field. R3 scores (nothing else going on her R3). R1 misses 2nd and starts to 3rd base. Meanwhile, F9 fires the ball in and guns out BR going for a double. BR is out #2. Now that BR is out of the picture, there is no preceding runner holding R1 back. How can R1 logically be prevented from returning all the way to 1st base? That isn't to say it would be rational for R1 to go back to 1st base. Rather, the argument is used to justifying the rule. The only way to keep her back from 1st is to have a runner "force" her from it. That doesn't exist here.

That's one example. I have a few more after my conversation tonight.

I might be able to add to that number if the double jacks are-a-flow'n when we meet up tomorrow night for a state meeting.

Stay tuned.

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

For example:

Would it be logical to apply a "retroactive" force out in the following play.

R3 on 3rd. R1 on 1st. 1 out. Ball hit to right field. R3 scores (nothing else going on her R3). R1 misses 2nd and starts to 3rd base. Meanwhile, F9 fires the ball in and guns out BR going for a double. BR is out #2. Now that BR is out of the picture, there is no preceding runner holding R1 back. How can R1 logically be prevented from returning all the way to 1st base? That isn't to say it would be rational for R1 to go back to 1st base. Rather, the argument is used to justifying the rule. The only way to keep her back from 1st is to have a runner "force" her from it. That doesn't exist here.

That's one example. I have a few more after my conversation tonight.

I might be able to add to that number if the double jacks are-a-flow'n when we meet up tomorrow night for a state meeting.

Stay tuned.

Thank you esqump I am sure this his a lot of people looking for their old books.

Looking forward to more examples.

Also wonder if the original comments / thoughts, etc are available somewhere?

Also have a cold one for me.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

For example:

Would it be logical to apply a "retroactive" force out in the following play.

R3 on 3rd. R1 on 1st. 1 out. Ball hit to right field. R3 scores (nothing else going on her R3). R1 misses 2nd and starts to 3rd base. Meanwhile, F9 fires the ball in and guns out BR going for a double. BR is out #2. Now that BR is out of the picture, there is no preceding runner holding R1 back. How can R1 logically be prevented from returning all the way to 1st base? That isn't to say it would be rational for R1 to go back to 1st base. Rather, the argument is used to justifying the rule. The only way to keep her back from 1st is to have a runner "force" her from it. That doesn't exist here.

That's one example. I have a few more after my conversation tonight.

I might be able to add to that number if the double jacks are-a-flow'n when we meet up tomorrow night for a state meeting.

Stay tuned.

Although R1 and R3 would be out for being on the wrong bases. Sounds like your authority might have the initials JM.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Although R1 and R3 would be out for being on the wrong bases. Sounds like your authority might have the initials JM.

Ya think?

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

So why not on a dead ball in ASA?

So why not what?

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So why not what?

I agree why not?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

I agree why not?

Okay, gotcha.

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

Then explain the premise of this portion of the POE:

"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".