I think what the casebook does is stretch exception e under 9-1-1. When more than one out is declared by an umpire the defense may choose the out to which is gains th advantage. In this case I can see this exception being used to declare the order of outs which occured. In this case, even though the appeal of the B-R missing first was done first, followed by the out of R3 for missing second, the outs are really declared as R3 out first, then the B-R, both of which are considered force outs, and thus no runs score.

As I've said, the rules need to be clearer.

Personally I wish they would all go to 1 rule code and be done with it. To many rule codes just causes problems. It is the same with track and field and with swimming and diving, two other sports I work.

is the point. :rolleyes:

what ? :confused: :confused:

I disagree with that statement. The rules are the rules, the case book is not the rules. The case plays should be the interpretations of the rules, BUT they don't cover each and every situation, nor do are they always correct. We had a situation several seasons ago in the casebook for track and field which stated one thing, but it failed to take into account a different rule which was more applicable to the situation. There was a clarification issues late in the season to the caseplay, and the following season the case play was changed.

Going strictly by the casebook doesn't always work because slight differences is the rules make a big difference, which is why clarity of the rules needs to be made, and Fed has a bad issue with this in my opinion.

Read 9-1-1- exception e.

"When there is more than one out declared by the umpire which terminates the half inning, (the defense may select the out to which is to its advantage.)

Like I said, it is a stretch to apply this exception, but it is the only way I can find even stretching the rule, to not apply 2-24-2 on this play.

I'm speechless.

The casebook provides plays to help interpret the rules. If there is a case play that is wrong, then someone needs to point that out to the organization's headquarters. There should never be a situation where a case play doesn't follow the rule.

You keep pointing out that the case play Hugo provided isn't the same as Mike's play in the original post. True. But the point of the case play is that it highlights the FED position that when a runner misses a base and was forced at the time she missed it, any appeal out of that runner is still considered a force out, regardless of what happened to a trail runner afterward. That's 180 out of how ASA treats it.

I personally don't think it's confusing.

Oh, that !

OK, so apparently the case play is needed and clears up the above.

When has anyone seen this applied?

bases loaded, 2 outs. B1 hits a double in the gap but misses first base. R1 and R2 both score before R3 is thrown out at 3rd for the 3rd out of the inning. Defense stays on the field and properly appeals B1 missing 1st base.

Defensive coach now has the option of turning this '4th out' into the '3rd out' rule applications and no runs would score.

(in ASA, all runs that scored on the play would still count as a '4th out' appeal can only be made on a runner who has scored)

Thanks, Hugo.. by the way for those of you following along in the book at home casebook 9.1.1.N from 2011 is now 9.1.1.O in the 2013 book.

I agree with the philosophy that if a trailing runner is put out prior to the appeal then the appeal should be a time play not a force out. ASA obviously agrees too because they have specifically stated in the rules that determining force or not is based on the situation at the time of the appeal not the time of the baserunning infraction.

The NFHS rules do not have this verbiage and the casebook plays clarify that NFHSs position is that you base the force on the situation at the time of missing the base. If she was being forced to the base when she missed it, NFHS says to consider it a force.

Now your just preaching to the choir, brother!:D

Only one out terminated the inning in the OP..the appeal play. 9--1-1-e would apply where you have a fourth out appeal.

I doubt you'll ever see one rule set for all organizations and levels of a sport. Rules are modified to accommodate various factors of the participants, such as skill levels, ages, safety requirements, desires to maximize playtime, etc. etc.