Men's ASA SP game, I am working alone as PU. 1 Out. R2 on 1B. B3 hits lazy pop-up between F5 anf F6 and in his disgust immediately walks into his dugout along first base side of field. R2 stays on 1B as F5 lets ball fall to the infield dirt, then runs over to it, picks up the ball and throws to F4, who is standing on 2B, who then relays it to F3 at 1B to complete the double play. Offensive dugout eurupts. "That's pathetic!" (in reference to my call) I respond, "Your batter hits a weak popup to the infield then does not run it out, and you're calling MY proper call of the play pathetic?" Then they want to know why that's not an infield fly situation! Truly stupefying, as these men have played SP for years. I also pointed out that the B1 was out when he entered the dugout.

Just like in my other recent message string, this other team also had an overthrow on defense, and wanted to know why 2 bases were awarded. They actually said, "But in little-league baseball it's one from the mound and infield and two bases only when the throw is from the outfield." So as not to make them more angry, I had know other recourse but to laugh to myself and ignore them.

Maybe leagues should have players take a rule test like we do. Or do you think would that be a bad idea?

Did the BR enter the dugout before the throw to 2B? If so, the force was removed and the runner could legally stay on 1st base.

I have wondered whether BR putting himself out by entering the bench area actually erases the force. After all, if BR throws off his helmet, he is out immediately, but any forces remain in effect. Maybe this situation is similar, as it seems unfair that the offense could benefit by abandoning effort.

The extreme play would be one in which, with a runner on 1B and less than 2 out, F6 lets a fly ball drop because BR is walking toward his bench. BR realizes what is happening and immediately enters DBT to remove the force on the runner.

Once when I was playing semipro baseball, an opponent stood at home plate with a runner on 1B and one out and watched the weak popup he had hit to F4. Our guy let the ball drop and got a double play. The BU disallowed the double play on the ground that F4 had intentionally dropped the ball. However, he let me appeal to the PU, who overruled him and allowed the double play.

A couple of years later, that BU began a 25-year career in MLB.

Good point. Time for a little reading...

The rule is 8-2D, and in the EXCEPTION clause it says the following, Interesting ... the BR has by context failed to advance and entered the team area, yet it looks like some runners may still be forced.

However, Case Play 8.2-12This is FP only because in SP the ball is dead on a walk, but it seems that with the BR being out for entering DBT, the force is removed.

Guess you're right, Dakota. So if you hit a pop with runners on and you don't want to run, the safest thing to do is get into the bench area as fast as possible (of course, you'd have to run to do that). Somehow, though, I don't think anyone is going to think that fast.

It seems to me that anytime the BR is put out before reaching 1st, the force is removed (e.g., caught fly ball, tagged on the way, 1st base touched before the preceding runner is out). Why should abandonment be any different?

I guess I better read 8-2 because this doesn't make sense to me out of context:
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Other than on a home run or four base award, runners cannot advance unless forced.
------------------------------------------------------------

Then no one could play.

There is a big difference between "let the ball drop" and "intentionally dropped the ball".

<b>There is a big difference between "let the ball drop" and "intentionally dropped the ball."</b>

There sure is, as that soon-to-be Major League umpire learned and undoubtedly never forgot.

However, when somebody tries to learn by reading the rule book, as this man undoubtedly did, he does not always discern which words were carefully inserted for meaning and which were simply slopped down. (There are plenty of both kinds in every rule book, case book, and umpire test I've ever seen.) The play I mentioned occurred in 1971, and I don't know that things like the PBUC and J/R and BRD were available then.

To me, such a mistake is understandable. The play had probably never come up for this particular ump. I can think of plenty of rules that I had to learn through hard experience, or at least by discussing them with knowledgeable people. Instances abound in the various books of sentences and phrases that have been accepted to mean "A" but that literally say "B."

<b>Maybe leagues should have players take a rule test like we do. Or do you think would that be a bad idea?</b>

I umpire one SP league in which many of the players suffered under me when I "taught" them English in junior high school. At least for that league, bad idea.

If they were to be tested, it would have to be done orally, with every situation presented on film, or actors simulating the plays.

And it would have to be multiple choice of two possible answers, like "out/safe" or "run scores/run doesn't score."

Seems to me as umpires, we should be watching the fair batted ball, not the BR. The last thing for which I am scanning the field is the BR.