Runs Scored
 

NFHS / ASA Rules...

R1 on third, R2 on second, R3 on first and 1 out.
B5 hits safely to right field.
R1 scores,
R2 misses third base and scores.
R3 is thrown out at third.
Playing action ends defensive team makes a dead ball appeal R2 missed third on her way home.
Umpire declares R2 out.
How many runs score?

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.

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."

Except for helmet removal.

Good catch there. Forgot about that one.

Speakin ASA. ;) :)

Then the call is the same for ASA and NFHS?

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?

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.

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 :p

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

Ya think? :rolleyes: :D

So why not what?

I agree why not?

Okay, gotcha.

So after all the roundabouts, R1 (lead runner on 3rd base ;) would score in ASA; and no runs would score elsewhere (NCAA, NFHS, USSSA, PONY).

Yes, 3 outs, but in this scenario, the third out is not force or BR (tags R3 trying to steal); so the run scoring or not is determined by the timing of R1 getting to HP before the out or not.

ASA - yes.

Looks like NCAA is no run. Don't know about others, but let me add another little tidbit.

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 don't think that on appeal, it's unreasonable to address the status of the runner at the time the base was missed. That makes the most intuitive sense to me.
However if the rule states otherwise, thats what I enforce....

One of the reasons for getting the big bucks is to know how the Romans want it called.
:D

Do you mean to tell me that ASA just decided to add that language for the hell of it? Of all of the rules they have they highlighted this one and wrote about this one. What sense does that make?

The information I have is from the people responsible for the change. Plus it just so happens to coincide with when a few changes were made to the national staff.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.