Bases loaded Homer, Missed Base, Runs?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

OK I'll play.

I believe A) B) and C) are same rulings in both ASA and NFHS

A) No runs score as third out was made by BR before touching 1B.

B) No runs score as third out was made by runner forced to advance because batter became a BR.

C) No runes score as third out was made by BR before touching 1B.

D) is the tricky one.

ASA 5.5.B.1 specifically says the force on an appeal play is determined at the time of the appeal not the time of the infraction (missing the base). So while R3 was being forced to 2B at the time she missed 2B, by the time the defense made the appeal the BR had been put out removing the force. The appeal of R3 becomes a time play not a force play so the runs by R1 and R2 score.

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 we discussed this ASA/NFHS difference about a month ago but I can't find the thread now.

And I have to leave for the ballpark!

I would look to the definition of a force out. When the B-R is retired on the force out, the force is removed on R3. I think in this situation, the timing of the appeals becomes critical. I do agree with that last part about leaving the ballpark. I can see both coaches out on the field arguing this one. I don't see anything in 9-1-1 exceptions that would apply to this situation. The key rule here to me is the definition of a force out. Since the B-R's out, even on appeal, is on a preceding runner, the out of R3 is no longer a force, thus the third out is simply an appeal out for missing the base.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I would look to the definition of a force out. When the B-R is retired on the force out, the force is removed on R3. I think in this situation, the timing of the appeals becomes critical. I do agree with that last part about leaving the ballpark. I can see both coaches out on the field arguing this one. I don't see anything in 9-1-1 exceptions that would apply to this situation. The key rule here to me is the definition of a force out. Since the B-R's out, even on appeal, is on a preceding runner, the out of R3 is no longer a force, thus the third out is simply an appeal out for missing the base.

(see my addition to Umpire Ernie's comment with the exact wording from the NFHS Case Book (2011).

9.1.1 SITUATION N: R1 is on second base, R2 on first base with one out. B4 hits safely to the outfield. R1 scores, R2 misses second base and is standing on third base when B4 is thrown out at second base. A dead-ball appeal is properly made on R2 for missing second base. The umpire rules R2 out for the third out.
Does R1's run count?
RULING: No. Since R2 was forced to advance to second
base, the appealed out at second base was a force out. No runs can score if the third out of an inning is the result of a force out. (8-6-7; 9-1-1 Exception b; 2-1)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

(see my addition to Umpire Ernie's comment with the exact wording from the NFHS Case Book (2011).

There is a difference between the case play and this play, that I'm not sure if it makes a difference or not.

In this case, the following runner is put out for missing first base. While not technically a force out, this removes the force play on F3 per the defintition of a force play.

Think of it this way. What if we had this situation instead. Bases loaded, B4 hits a slow roller to F3. F3 fields, touches 1st base (retiring the B-R), then throws to second trying to get R3. The throw sails into the outfield, and R1, R2, and R3 all score. The defense then appeals that R3 missed second base. Because the following runner had been put out, there is no force. R3 is out for missing the base.

This seems to be a clarity of the rules issue. I personally think the ASA rule on this is clearer and is correct, and once again Fed has rules (as they do with many sports), that are not as clear as they could be.

As I have said, I can see both sides on this. I think the case play, even though it isn't the exact same ruling, makes sense. I also think it is inconsistent with the definition of the force play in 2-24.