Bases loaded Homer, Missed Base, Runs?
 

Exploring a nuance in the rules and came up with a disagreement here. 4 situations. Both Fed and ASA rulings please.

A) 2 outs, bases loaded, batter hits one out of the park. BR misses first base and is properly appealed after all four runners enter the dugout. How many runs score?

B) 2 outs, bases loaded, batter hits one out of the park. R3 misses second base and is properly appealed after all four runners enter the dugout. How many runs score?

C) 1 out, bases loaded, batter hits one out of the park. BR misses first base and R3 misses second base. Defense properly appeals R3, and then BR after all four runners enter the dugout. How many runs score?

D) 1 out, bases loaded, batter hits one out of the park. BR misses first base and R3 misses second base. Defense properly appeals BR, and then R3 after all four runners enter the dugout. How many runs score?

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! :)

Those answer are exactly what I was trying to convey to someone else.

Anyone else have any reason to disagree?

I'll try to think of something. ;) :) :p :p :)

My take:

A) 0 runs, third out was a force out.

B) 0 runs, third out was a force out.

C) 0 runs, third out was a force out.

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).

Which rule set are you answering about? :confused:

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.

Here is the text cut and pasted from the 2011 NFHS SB Case Book:

Fed.

This is interesting. I can see this both ways. Certainly the rule about a force out is in play, but at the same time I do see this being a situation where the rule should be that both are considered force outs, thus no runs score.

It's too bad the rules for Fed don't cover this very clearly, as I can see something like this being a situation that could occur. Lord knows, I've already had a bunch of missed base appeals this season.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.