Bases loaded Homer, Missed Base, Runs?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

D) I would say 2 runs score, R1, and R2. B-R is out for failing to touch 1b, then R3 is out for failing to touch 2nd base. Due to a preceding runner being retired (B-R), R3 is out, but this is not a force out. I would then be hearing both coach out complaining about the situation.

You work FED, if memory serves... Assuming that, what rules basis do you use to rule R3 as not a force, thus scoring the runs?

(If you only meant ASA, I agree with you).

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You work FED, if memory serves... Assuming that, what rules basis do you use to rule R3 as not a force, thus scoring the runs?

(If you only meant ASA, I agree with you).

Definition of a force out. Rule 2-24-2 For a given runner, the force play ends as the runner touches the next base, or the following runner is put out.

In this case, the appeal of the B-R for missing first base was an out by the following runner, which under this rule removes the force on R3. R3 thus would be out for missing 2nd base.

I think this is a case where the Fed rules need to be clearer to be honest.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I think this is a case where the Fed rules need to be clearer to be honest.

Probably, but the NFHS ruling is
"NHFS 9.1.1 does not include the verbiage about when the force is determined (time of infraction or time of appeal) and the casebook plays support the interp that since R3 was forced to 2B at the time she missed 2B this appeal is considered a force play and as the third out no runs score."

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Probably, but the NFHS ruling is
"NHFS 9.1.1 does not include the verbiage about when the force is determined (time of infraction or time of appeal) and the casebook plays support the interp that since R3 was forced to 2B at the time she missed 2B this appeal is considered a force play and as the third out no runs score."

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

what the casebook does

is the point.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

is the point.

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

When more than one out is declared by an umpire the defense may choose the out to which is gains the advantage.

what ?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

what ?

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

Oh, that !

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

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.)

When has anyone seen this applied?

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.)

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.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

Now your just preaching to the choir, brother!

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

Now your just preaching to the choir, brother!

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.