Really Dumb Question re: Run Scored on pop fly?

[typikon]

2 outs. Runner on third. Batter hits a towering fly ball to centerfield. By the time the ball was legally caught, R3 had touched the plate without tagging up, and the BR had touched first base. Now why wouldn't the run score? It seems like such a common play; we all know the run does not score, and the defense in this situation does not need to get a "fourth out" to nullify the run. But none of the three exceptions in 4.09 seem to offer a reason to not score the run. There must be some midrash that either interprets a fly-out as a "force" for purposes of this rule (in which case the batter runner is considered a runner), or else "touch first base" doesn't mean what I think.

[britinmuc]

4.09 HOW A TEAM SCORES.
(a) One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning.
EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a
play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases.


BATTER-RUNNER is a term that identifies the offensive player who has just
finished his time at bat until he is put out or until the play on which he became a runner
ends.


6.04 A batter has legally completed his time at bat when he is put out or becomes a runner.

Batter-Runner is out (on the catch) before he touches first. Even if he actually touches first before the catch.

Think of it as Batter-Runner is out at TOP.

[Richard_Siegel]

2 outs. Runner on third. Batter hits a towering fly ball to centerfield. By the time the ball was legally caught, R3 had touched the plate without tagging up, and the BR had touched first base. Now why wouldn't the run score? It seems like such a common play; we all know the run does not score, and the defense in this situation does not need to get a "fourth out" to nullify the run. But none of the three exceptions in 4.09 seem to offer a reason to not score the run. There must be some midrash that either interprets a fly-out as a "force" for purposes of this rule (in which case the batter runner is considered a runner), or else "touch first base" doesn't mean what I think.

It is not such a dumb question as I have had others ask about this as well.

The thing that confuses you is exactly what you have pointed out: "touch first base" doesn't mean what you think. By definition a runner only "touches" a base he is entitled to occupy safely. So even though the BR's foot made contact with the 1B bag before the ball was caught by F8, by rule, he never actually "touched" it.

It will help you immensely if you mentally insert the word "safely" into the part of rule 4.09 HOW A TEAM SCORES: (1) by the batter-runner before he safely touches first base; With that word added to clarify the rule for you all of your questions are answered.

[typikon]

Thank you!

What's the fallacy in looking at the sitch this way?

"When the batter hits a fair ball, he becomes a runner (6.09a) and is "forced" to first. If so, then retiring a batter-runner by catching a fly ball could be considered a "force out", because such a putout is made before batter "reaches" the base to which he is forced. Hence the run doesn't score because the third out was a force out."

I predict that you'll tell me there is no such thing as a "force" at first base, but then how do I make sense of 7.08e????

[Rich_Ives]

Thank you!

What's the fallacy in looking at the sitch this way?

"When the batter hits a fair ball, he becomes a runner (6.09a) and is "forced" to first. If so, then retiring a batter-runner by catching a fly ball could be considered a "force out", because such a putout is made before batter "reaches" the base to which he is forced. Hence the run doesn't score because the third out was a force out."

I predict that you'll tell me there is no such thing as a "force" at first base, but then how do I make sense of 7.08e????

There is no force at first. A force can only happen to a runner already on base. Read 2.00 "Force Play" several times.

Also see 2.00 "Runner" and "Batter-Runner".

7.08(e) covers runners already on base. If runners already on base are forced to advance then they are out if . . . .

The batter-runner is out on a fly ball under 6.05(a) or at first under 6.05(j). 7.08(e) doesn't come into play for the batter-runner.

And that's why 4.09 has the two different exceptions.

[lustersilk]

Sounds to me like you are really analyzing the book, good for you.

[heyblue26]

First of all there is no such thing as a dumb question. I have always heard the only dumb question is the question that is never asked. Study the rule book over and over until you understand it and then read it again. Thanks for the question.

[typikon]

There is no force at first. A force can only happen to a runner already on base. Read 2.00 "Force Play" several times.

Also see 2.00 "Runner" and "Batter-Runner".

7.08(e) covers runners already on base. If runners already on base are forced to advance then they are out if . . . .



OK, so in the simplest example, with R1 and hard grounder to F3, who touches first, isn't it true that 7.08e applies:

"If a following runner (BR in my example) is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out."

Wouldn't this be the rule that dictates that R1 would need to be tagged out? If so, doesn't rule 7.08e refer to the BR as a "following runner [who] is put out on a force play"?

It seems to me -- just someone trying to understand the rulebook -- like a runner can only be out based on a rule, not a definition, and that rule 7.08e seems to refer to a BR as a "following runner".

[britinmuc]

In your scenario (re-iteration for my clarification)

R1
Ball hit to F3 who tags base.

At the moment of the hit, R1 is forced and has to give up 1B.
As F3 tags the base - Batter-Runner (preceding runner) is out removing the force.

If R1 is sleeping and doesnt move from 1B on the hit, F3 tags the base and then the runner I have the BR as OUT and R1 as Safe (force removed).

Alternatively if F3 tags R1 and then the base I have 2 out.
R1 is forced - tagged off base, BR out base/player tagged.

[bobjenkins]

OK, so in the simplest example, with R1 and hard grounder to F3, who touches first, isn't it true that 7.08e applies:

"If a following runner (BR in my example) is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out."

One of the 234 (or some such number) of errors in the book. If the following runner is put out in any manner (not just on a force play), the force is removed.

In a practical matter*, there's no difference between BR being "forced" at first and "put out" at first, and you can think of it that way. It's not technically correct.

* - someone once came up with one small reason (i.e., a play which would be ruled differently) why the terms are not synonymous, but I can't remember what it is.

[Rich_Ives]

OK, so in the simplest example, with R1 and hard grounder to F3, who touches first, isn't it true that 7.08e applies:

"If a following runner (BR in my example) is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out."

Wouldn't this be the rule that dictates that R1 would need to be tagged out? If so, doesn't rule 7.08e refer to the BR as a "following runner [who] is put out on a force play"?

It seems to me -- just someone trying to understand the rulebook -- like a runner can only be out based on a rule, not a definition, and that rule 7.08e seems to refer to a BR as a "following runner".


If a following runner is put out in any manner then the runner ahead of him is no longer forced. Therefore 7.08(e) no longer applies so that sentence doesn't really matter. Why? Because who is forcing him? No one. As he is no longer forced the advance runner(s) have to be tagged. It is removed not because of a force play, but because the out of the trail runner means no one ahead of him is forced any more.

Go back and read 2.00 "Force Play" and you'll see the comment about the force being removed in exactly the situation you are discussing.

As you learn the rules you will find many instances where you have to combine rules to arrive at the correct answwr. This is one of them.

Keep learning!

[typikon]

If a following runner is put out in any manner then the runner ahead of him is no longer forced. Therefore 7.08(e) no longer applies so that sentence doesn't really matter. Why? Because who is forcing him? No one. As he is no longer forced the advance runner(s) have to be tagged. It is removed not because of a force play, but because the out of the trail runner means no one ahead of him is forced any more.

Go back and read 2.00 "Force Play" and you'll see the comment about the force being removed in exactly the situation you are discussing.

As you learn the rules you will find many instances where you have to combine rules to arrive at the correct answwr. This is one of them.

Keep learning!

At the risk of frustrating you, I'm not entirely sure you understand my question. I don't think I'm confused about the force play, as much as whether it's so important to our understanding of the rules that we insist that there is not a "force out" at first.

The Definition 2.00 does indeed describe exactly my situation, yes, you're correct.

But it seems to me that rule 7.08e is inconsistent with Definition 2.00. Instead of saying:

"... However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out...."

it should say:

"... However, if a following runner or the batter runner is put out (for any reason), the force is removed and the leading runner(s) must be tagged to be put out...."

Without something like this the rule seems to assume the layman's understanding: that the BR is a "following runner" and when "forced out" at first, the force at second is removed.

I'm not taking issue with the principle, as much as trying to understand just what you say: how the various rules are combined in the interpretations. Here, the wording in rule 7.08e just seems sloppy.

[nopachunts]

Here, the wording in rule 7.08e just seems sloppy.

In several places the rule book is written very sloppy. This also applies to any OBR based rule book. The rules as written seen to contradict each other. That's why umpires have forums like this, numerous books, and clinics to help umpires to interpret the rules correctly.

[sdix00]

At the risk of frustrating you, I'm not entirely sure you understand my question. I don't think I'm confused about the force play, as much as whether it's so important to our understanding of the rules that we insist that there is not a "force out" at first.

The Definition 2.00 does indeed describe exactly my situation, yes, you're correct.

But it seems to me that rule 7.08e is inconsistent with Definition 2.00. Instead of saying:

"... However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out...."

it should say:

"... However, if a following runner or the batter runner is put out (for any reason), the force is removed and the leading runner(s) must be tagged to be put out...."

Without something like this the rule seems to assume the layman's understanding: that the BR is a "following runner" and when "forced out" at first, the force at second is removed.

I'm not taking issue with the principle, as much as trying to understand just what you say: how the various rules are combined in the interpretations. Here, the wording in rule 7.08e just seems sloppy.

It is possible you are parsing this sentence differently than the author intended. I submit that there is nothing wrong with this sentence:
"... However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out...."


It sounds like you interpret this to mean that if the BR is put out BY a force play, then the force is removed.

However, the sentence simply says the runner (BR) is put out ON a force play. Meaning While a force play is in effect. Now that the trailing runner was put out (for any reason) the force play is no longer in effect.

[typikon]

It is possible you are parsing this sentence differently than the author intended. I submit that there is nothing wrong with this sentence:



It sounds like you interpret this to mean that if the BR is put out BY a force play, then the force is removed.

However, the sentence simply says the runner (BR) is put out ON a force play. Meaning While a force play is in effect. Now that the trailing runner was put out (for any reason) the force play is no longer in effect.

I'm tempted to agree, but look at how the rest of the rule book deals with "force play." Consider the definition of a force double play:

"A force double play is one in which both putouts are force plays."

This seems to suggest that a "force play" is not the whole situation, enveloping multiple bases, but is a specific situation for each forced runner. So in a bases loaded scenario, we would say that in the event of a ground ball, "we have force plays on each runner". Hence when 7.08e talks about a following runner being put out ON a force play, it seems to talk about just that runner's predicament.

Still not entirely satisfied, although regarding the OP, I did look this up in Jaksa/Roder, a book suggested to me in another thread, and he evidently notices the same problem and notes that a run does not count in situations where the the third out is a force, or the batter runner doesn't touch first base, OR, the batter-runner's fly ball is caught. (I don't have it in front of me so I'm paraphrasing. He then references 4.09a1, which supports everything that I believe y'all are telling me: No such thing as a "force play" on the batter runner.

[Rich_Ives]

I'm tempted to agree, but look at how the rest of the rule book deals with "force play." Consider the definition of a force double play:

"A force double play is one in which both putouts are force plays."

This seems to suggest that a "force play" is not the whole situation, enveloping multiple bases, but is a specific situation for each forced runner. So in a bases loaded scenario, we would say that in the event of a ground ball, "we have force plays on each runner". Hence when 7.08e talks about a following runner being put out ON a force play, it seems to talk about just that runner's predicament.

Still not entirely satisfied, although regarding the OP, I did look this up in Jaksa/Roder, a book suggested to me in another thread, and he evidently notices the same problem and notes that a run does not count in situations where the the third out is a force, or the batter runner doesn't touch first base, OR, the batter-runner's fly ball is caught. (I don't have it in front of me so I'm paraphrasing. He then references 4.09a1, which supports everything that I believe y'all are telling me: No such thing as a "force play" on the batter runner.

So are you going to "get it" or are you going to keep nit-picking? It's been "wrong", if you want to call it that, for decades, if not for over a century. Just about everyone knows what it really means and how to call it. Please join the crowd.

[johnnyg08]

2 outs. Runner on third. Batter hits a towering fly ball to centerfield. By the time the ball was legally caught, R3 had touched the plate without tagging up, and the BR had touched first base. Now why wouldn't the run score? It seems like such a common play; we all know the run does not score, and the defense in this situation does not need to get a "fourth out" to nullify the run. But none of the three exceptions in 4.09 seem to offer a reason to not score the run. There must be some midrash that either interprets a fly-out as a "force" for purposes of this rule (in which case the batter runner is considered a runner), or else "touch first base" doesn't mean what I think.

Flaw in your reasoning is that even though the batter/runner touches first base, he hasn't by rule, obtained first base, because the batted ball that was hit in the air was caught by a fielder, so the batter-runner did not successfully reach first base. If your interpretation was correct, don't you think you'd see that happened 200 times a night on Baseball Tonight?

[bobjenkins]

So are you going to "get it" or are you going to keep nit-picking? It's been "wrong", if you want to call it that, for decades, if not for over a century. Just about everyone knows what it really means and how to call it. Please join the crowd.

Agreed. And, we all went through the same issue with the book(s).

Just accept that it doesn't always say what it means, or mean what it says. You need to read it with some degree of baseball-common-sense, and in conjunction with other reference materials.

[yawetag]

Just accept that it doesn't always say what it means, or mean what it says. You need to read it with some degree of baseball-common-sense, and in conjunction with other reference materials.

This is the reason I don't feel I'll ever officiate any sport but baseball. While I can read a rule book, learn the mechanics, and educate myself on the finer points of the rules, I don't think someone can "learn" the common sense of a sport they haven't been involved with for a long time.

Yes, I could be a basketball official. However, I think it would take entirely too long to be able to anticipate the play that's going to happen, so I'll always be in a position of reacting to the game; this would prevent me from becoming a higher-level (in ability, not in age of game) official.

[typikon]

Agreed. And, we all went through the same issue with the book(s).

Just accept that it doesn't always say what it means, or mean what it says. You need to read it with some degree of baseball-common-sense, and in conjunction with other reference materials.

Actually ,this has been very helpful. As a person trying to learn the rule book and its limitations, I find this forum useful. My "nitpicking" is nothing more than trying to learn where the rule book is squishy and where it isn't.

The problem with "baseball common sense" is that much of the common sense is wrong. Consider only that the first thing our UIC handed us was the 40 famous "baseball myths." This whole thread is a great example: every baseball player knows that there is a "force play" at first base. Becoming an umpire surely means learning where the "common sense" is in fact correct, and where it is not, and where (as in this case) it makes absolutely no difference, and the alternative explanation that I offered is just as consistent with the rules as the accepted one.

[Rich_Ives]

Actually ,this has been very helpful. As a person trying to learn the rule book and its limitations, I find this forum useful. My "nitpicking" is nothing more than trying to learn where the rule book is squishy and where it isn't.

The problem with "baseball common sense" is that much of the common sense is wrong. Consider only that the first thing our UIC handed us was the 40 famous "baseball myths." This whole thread is a great example: every baseball player knows that there is a "force play" at first base. Becoming an umpire surely means learning where the "common sense" is in fact correct, and where it is not, and where (as in this case) it makes absolutely no difference, and the alternative explanation that I offered is just as consistent with the rules as the accepted one.

The only reason you can sell your explanation is because folks believe it is a force at first.

In another circumstance a substitute reasoning may not work, so learn it the right way and sell it the right way.