Interesting play

[stu127]

runners on 2nd and 3rd, 2 outs. Batter hits a sharp ball to second, second baseman errors the ball. Ball goes in rt field. Rt fielder backing up the play gets the ball and makes the out at 1st.

Meanwhile the run from 3rd scores.

It has been explained to me that once the error occurs that the run can score from third before the out at first.

what's the call?

[richvee]

runners on 2nd and 3rd, 2 outs. Batter hits a sharp ball to second, second baseman errors the ball. Ball goes in rt field. Rt fielder backing up the play gets the ball and makes the out at 1st.

Meanwhile the run from 3rd scores.

It has been explained to me that once the error occurs that the run can score from third before the out at first.

what's the call?

Batter/runner never reached first. No run.

[stu127]

even if there was an error on the play?

[richvee]

Makes no difference. If the batter/runner never reaches first base, no run shall score. Another example:
R3, 2 outs. Batter swings and misses at strike 3, catchers misses the ball. F2 gets the ball and throws out batter/runner at first, but not before R3 crosses home. Run does NOT score.

[richvee]

Not to be mean. But it's not really an "interesting" play...It's pretty basic stuff.

[stu127]

I can dig it. But this type of thing was described in a clinic and I "thought" they said once an error was made on the ball and the runner crosses home before the play at 1st. Then the run scores.

I got very lucky tonight on this.

LL D4 11/12 AS Tourny Semi. 1st inning this happens. I remember the play being told in a clinic and I let the run score cause of the error on the play. No appeal or anything. The team I gave the run too lost by 2 in a walk off 3 run triple with 2 outs bottom of the 6th.


whew...

edit---ya big meanie

[bobjenkins]

It has been explained to me that once the error occurs that the run can score from third before the out at first.

Since this is the " Newbies (NO flaming allowed!)" forum, I'll just say that you need to get better explanations.

[richvee]

Since this is the " Newbies (NO flaming allowed!)" forum, I'll just say that you need to get better explanations.

I just hope he misunderstood something and nobody is actually "teaching" this in a clinic.

[lawump1]

Repeat after me: "No run can score on a play in which the third out of the inning is recorded and that third out is a force out."

[Rich_Ives]

Repeat after me: "No run can score on a play in which the third out of the inning is recorded and that third out is a force out."

Just quote 4.09(a) Exception:

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.


And in this case it's exception 1. The Batter-Runner at first is NOT a force play.

[stu127]

I just hope he misunderstood something and nobody is actually "teaching" this in a clinic.

I am thinking it was a misunderstanding.

Repeat after me: "No run can score on a play in which the third out of the inning is recorded and that third out is a force out."

yeah I got that part already. was wondering about the error...

Just quote 4.09(a) Exception:

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.


And in this case it's exception 1. The Batter-Runner at first is NOT a force play.

got it thanks!

[richvee]

Since the batter/runner never even made it to 1st in this sitch, there is no error.

[bigbird69]

The sit. is not clear on one thing, and it is the only thing that matters...

F9 threw to F3 for the out... was it a force out? or did he/she throw behind the runner for the tag. If force out, no runs... if throw behind, then if the runner crossed the plate prior, count it.

Clarity can make a huge difference in the answer given.

[lawump1]

Just quote 4.09(a) Exception:

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.


And in this case it's exception 1. The Batter-Runner at first is NOT a force play.

The lawyer in me says I can make a pretty strong argument that #2 applies to the OP, too. But, I do appreciate you posting the rule.

[EastTNump08]

For the record, B/R at first is not a force out...it's treated similarly, but it isn't a force out. You make a good point though. If the BR made a wide turn and got hosed then you would have a run scoring.

[Rich_Ives]

The lawyer in me says I can make a pretty strong argument that #2 applies to the OP, too. But, I do appreciate you posting the rule.

The appelate judge says you can't. It's not a force out so #2 can't apply.

[lawump1]

The appelate judge says you can't. It's not a force out so #2 can't apply.

As I re-think the definition of "force out", I defer to your analysis.

[dileonardoja]

As I re-think the definition of "force out", I defer to your analysis.

You don't have to rethink it...Just re-read it

A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base
by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

[lawump1]

A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base
by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

Which is exactly language that came to mind when I was "thinking" when I posted my last post before this one. Brain cramp on my part, two posts ago.

Without a rulebook in front of me, I did have to re-think.

[typikon]

So the definition of a "Force Double Play" refers only to double plays at 2nd and third? :)

2.00 a) "A Force Double Play is one in which both putouts are force plays."

The problem with the "no force at first" argument is that the rules themselves, in at least two places, are written to assume that the out at first is a force play. See also 7.08e, which is where the force play is actually described.

Moreover, the definition of the out at first at 6.05i is identical to the description of a force play at 7.08e.

[Rich_Ives]

So the definition of a "Force Double Play" refers only to double plays at 2nd and third? :)



The problem with the "no force at first" argument is that the rules themselves, in at least two places, are written to assume that the out at first is a force play. See also 7.08e, which is where the force play is actually described.

Moreover, the definition of the out at first at 6.05i is identical to the description of a force play at 7.08e.

It's not a force at first. See 2.00 as to what is a force play. 7.08(e) does NOT describe WHAT a force play is.

7.08(e) describes how to get an out on a runner who had to advance because the batter became a runner (a force play). It doesn't address the batter-runner. He''s covered in 6.05(j) [OBR] or 6.05(i) [LL].

So what if how you get the out is identical. It doesn't take into consideration the WHY the runner or batter-runner is advancing, only how you get him out when he is..

Stop being a pig-headed dolt and listen to the experienced people for a change.

[typikon]

It's not a force at first. See 2.00 as to what is a force play. 7.08(e) does NOT describe WHAT a force play is.


7.08e describes how a runner in a Force Play is put out. If also describes how a Force is removed:



... However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed....



Clearly, in the most typical force play on R1 at second base, this rule makes no sense unless you agree that a batter-runner is subject to a Force Play at 1st, unless you say that this rule only applies to R2s and R3s, and that the Force Play and its removal on an R1 is strictly covered by 2.00. But that's a contorted way of reasoning.

Life is so much easier if you admit that a batter-runner is also a runner.


7.08(e) describes how to get an out on a runner who had to advance because the batter became a runner (a force play). It doesn't address the batter-runner. He''s covered in 6.05(j) [OBR] or 6.05(i) [LL].

Indeed, and principle at 6.05i is **exactly** the same as 7.08e: on a fair ground ball, the batter-runner is out if he does not reach the bag before the defense tags either him or the ball. That is how a forced runner of any kind is put out.

So what if how you get the out is identical. It doesn't take into consideration the WHY the runner or batter-runner is advancing, only how you get him out when he is.

Calling the play at first a force play does not endanger my understanding of why the batter-runner is advancing. The idea that a Force Play can encompass more than one base because a batter becomes a runner is still valid for the other bases.

Stop being a pig-headed dolt and listen to the experienced people for a change.

This insistence on calling a Force Play at first base something else (what exactly do you call it? a "retirement"??) is a typical example of esoteric nitpicking one encounters in many professions. A lawyer will tell you for example that "Not Guilty" is not the same as "Innocent." Well, only to him. The fact is that the players all know it's a Force Play, the coaches teach the game by referring to it as a Force Play, the announcers call it a Force Out, the rules obviously refer to it as a force play, as I've shown you, and by calling it a force play, none of the other rules are harmed. Who exactly is being pig-headed here?

[dash_riprock]

Indeed, and principle at 6.05i is **exactly** the same as 7.08e: on a fair ground ball, the batter-runner is out if he does not reach the bag before the defense tags either him or the ball. That is how a forced runner of any kind is put out.

By that logic, a retouch appeal is also a force out. Get ready to lose some protests when you take a run off tbe board when R3 scores ahead of the "force" on the appeal. (BTW - just how does the defense tag the ball?)

The fact is that the players all know it's a Force Play, the coaches teach the game by referring to it as a Force Play, the announcers call it a Force Out...

The same folks who will tell you the hands are part of the bat.

[Rich_Ives]

Life is so much easier if you admit that a batter-runner is also a runner.


Read rule 2.00. A batter-runner is not the same as a runner on base.

Indeed, and principle at 6.05i is **exactly** the same as 7.08e: on a fair ground ball, the batter-runner is out if he does not reach the bag before the defense tags either him or the ball. That is how a forced runner of any kind is put out.

Which part of this

So what if how you get the out is identical. It doesn't take into consideration the WHY the runner or batter-runner is advancing, only how you get him out when he is.

is so hard to grasp?


By your logic if the batter is put out via a fly ball R1 is still forced to advance because the BR wasn't put out on a force play.

As we have tried to convey to you multiple times, you cannot go with just the rule book. You need to undersyand the intent and meaning, you need to grasp the official (MLBUM and PBUC for OBR, plus the org pubs for other organizations) rulings and interpretations that are beyond those already in the book, and you need to understand that JEA and J/R are mostly but not always correct (as things change) and most of all recognize that people with many many many years of study and analysis should be listened to.

Question for you. If, on a force play or the play at 1B, if the fielder tags the base in time with the ball, not the body, is the runner out?

[Tim_C]

"A lawyer will tell you for example that "Not Guilty" is not the same as "Innocent." Well, only to him."

Not so fast my blue clad brethern.

As with fortuitous and fortunate (they do not mean the 'same' thing) neither do "Not Guilty" and "Innocent".

"Not Guilty" simply means that 'nothing was proven' whereas "Innocent" means 'blameless.'

I am neither an attorney nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express -- however -- I do know that words have specific meanings.

Proof: Refer to O J Simpson or Casey Anthony


T

[typikon]

By your logic if the batter is put out via a fly ball R1 is still forced to advance because the BR wasn't put out on a force play.


By "my logic", a batter who hits a legally caught fly ball never became a runner.

As we have tried to convey to you multiple times, you cannot go with just the rule book. You need to undersyand the intent and meaning, you need to grasp the official (MLBUM and PBUC for OBR, plus the org pubs for other organizations) rulings and interpretations that are beyond those already in the book, and you need to understand that JEA and J/R are mostly but not always correct (as things change) and most of all recognize that people with many many many years of study and analysis should be listened to.


You have conveyed this successfully, Rich. I bought all those books only to learn that if any of them contradict you, then I should refer to you. What you're also conveying is that you're very defensive on this topic. I understand your position. It doesn't upset my applecart to learn that all of umpiredom thinks of this is in the same way, just as it probably doesn't concern you much that the players all think of it as a "force play at first." When talking to others about the rules, I relay to them that the rules don't speak about a "force play" at first base.

I don't have a big issue with going "your way" on this, because I do respect the tradition, so to speak, but internally, amongst ourselves, I'm merely asking whether this is a distinction without a meaningful difference. So far, no one has pointed out a meaningful difference.

Someone earlier mentioned the popular myth that "the hands are part of the bat". That's a great example of what I mean. It's a myth because if you buy into it, a meaningful difference in the game results. But in the case of the "putout at first", I still don't see much harm in calling it what it is.

Same with appeal plays; the appeal play is not a Force Play, because the condition of runners losing their right to occupy a base "by reason of the batter becoming a runner" has not occurred.

Question for you. If, on a force play or the play at 1B, if the fielder tags the base in time with the ball, not the body, is the runner out?

No. The fielder must hold the ball "long enough," through a collision, etc. just like a "Catch." :-)

[Rich_Ives]

By "my logic", a batter who hits a legally caught fly ball never became a runner.


Nice try, but the batter became a runner as soon as he hit the fair ball. 6.09(a).


No. The fielder must hold the ball "long enough," through a collision, etc. just like a "Catch." :-)

So smarty pants answer the question. It was:

If, on a force play or the play at 1B, if the fielder tags the base in time with the ball, not the body, is the runner out?

Or did you guess why I asked and decided to skirt the issue?



Comments insereted into the quote.

[sdix00]

I don't have a big issue with going "your way" on this, because I do respect the tradition, so to speak, but internally, amongst ourselves, I'm merely asking whether this is a distinction without a meaningful difference. So far, no one has pointed out a meaningful difference.


Here you go:
1. Would you enforce the Force Play Slide Rule at 1B?
2. Say BR acquired 1B, then stepped off toward HP to remove his gloves, and F1 threw to F3 who tagged 1B. Would you reinstate the 'force' here, and call the runner out?

[Rich_Ives]

You have conveyed this successfully, Rich. I bought all those books only to learn that if any of them contradict you, then I should refer to you. What you're also conveying is that you're very defensive on this topic. I understand your position. It doesn't upset my applecart to learn that all of umpiredom thinks of this is in the same way, just as it probably doesn't concern you much that the players all think of it as a "force play at first." When talking to others about the rules, I relay to them that the rules don't speak about a "force play" at first base.

I don't have a big issue with going "your way" on this, because I do respect the tradition, so to speak, but internally, amongst ourselves, I'm merely asking whether this is a distinction without a meaningful difference. So far, no one has pointed out a meaningful difference.



When it's you against the world it's probably wise to bet on the world.

[bobjenkins]

When it's you against the world it's probably wise to bet on the world.

See "kemp (?) interference" ;)

[uame]

even if there was an error on the play?

The OP mentioned "error on the play" at least 3 times. One basic premise to remember here is that umpires on the field are NOT concerned with whether a play is an ERROR or not. At NO TIME do you ever have to think, "Was that an error??" before making a ruling on the field. Those questions of scoring are left up to the official scorer, and sometimes aren't even decided until later.

[sdix00]

The OP mentioned "error on the play" at least 3 times. One basic premise to remember here is that umpires on the field are NOT concerned with whether a play is an ERROR or not. At NO TIME do you ever have to think, "Was that an error??" before making a ruling on the field. Those questions of scoring are left up to the official scorer, and sometimes aren't even decided until later.

Little League rules require the umpire to consider an error under a certain set of conditions. Nothing to do with the OP, but just a note from the literalnet.

Errors must also be considered when making appeals.

[typikon]

The OP mentioned "error on the play" at least 3 times. One basic premise to remember here is that umpires on the field are NOT concerned with whether a play is an ERROR or not. At NO TIME do you ever have to think, "Was that an error??" before making a ruling on the field. Those questions of scoring are left up to the official scorer, and sometimes aren't even decided until later.

I had the same reaction but then remembered that "erring" on an appeal play is a factor we must consider in the rule book. Is an "error" in making an appeal the same thing as an "error" from a scorekeeping perspective? I had always figured that erring on an appeal play was throwing the ball out of play.

[typikon]

Here you go:
1. Would you enforce the Force Play Slide Rule at 1B?
2. Say BR acquired 1B, then stepped off toward HP to remove his gloves, and F1 threw to F3 who tagged 1B. Would you reinstate the 'force' here, and call the runner out?

1. Interesting. This is Fed rules, right? So yes, this would be a problem with my approach (if we were talking Fed), which I wasn't. But it's an example of the kind of thing I'm asking for: are there other (OBR) rules which are harmed by calling the play at first a force?

2. Forces can only be reinstated during continuous action. See Rule 2.00 "frequently the force situation is removed during the play." See also J/R at page 46. So tagging 1B in your example does not give us an out. I'm not sure how this would be any different at 2B or 3B. Or consider a runner who scores on a force play, gets up, heads back to his dugout on the 3B side. Is he "retreating"? Is the force play reinstated? No.

[sdix00]

1. Interesting. This is Fed rules, right? So yes, this would be a problem with my approach (if we were talking Fed), which I wasn't. But it's an example of the kind of thing I'm asking for: are there other (OBR) rules which are harmed by calling the play at first a force?

2. Forces can only be reinstated during continuous action. See Rule 2.00 "frequently the force situation is removed during the play." See also J/R at page 46. So tagging 1B in your example does not give us an out. I'm not sure how this would be any different at 2B or 3B. Or consider a runner who scores on a force play, gets up, heads back to his dugout on the 3B side. Is he "retreating"? Is the force play reinstated? No.

consider a runner who scores on a force play
Not applicable. Legally scored runs cannot be unscored.

Forces can only be reinstated during continuous action
You are correct. However, in my example, if you cannot call time, then you still have continuous action (or vice-versa, actually.) You would not call time if R1 stepped off and were vulnerable to being put out.

You can add situational what-ifs. But this discussion centers on the rules. If you insist that there is no practical difference between a force vs a BR reaching 1B, you will get an argument. We parse, dissect, and re-engineer concepts on this board and it is part of what makes us good umpires. There are a dozen threads just like this one.

These are my arguments:
1. The rule book draws a distinction between a force and a BR reaching 1B.
2. You asked for a practical example of the difference, and I gave you two.
3. If you are going to parse the books, in order to really understand their literal applications, interps, ARs, AOs, legacy, and inherent flaws , then you don't have the luxury of globbing these two distinct rules.
4. If you are trying to hit, run, throw and catch, then you shouldn't care about any of the above.

If you still have any doubt, see argument #1.

[Rich_Ives]

See "kemp (?) interference" ;)

Has anyone seen an official explanation of why the Kemp and Armbrister plays were different - thus the different calls.

I've seen a lot of speculation and debate.

If I recall correctly, the Armbrister call was legitimized by MLB in some form of press release or discussion.

[Rich_Ives]

I had the same reaction but then remembered that "erring" on an appeal play is a factor we must consider in the rule book. Is an "error" in making an appeal the same thing as an "error" from a scorekeeping perspective? I had always figured that erring on an appeal play was throwing the ball out of play.

Yes, erring on an appeal means throwing the ball out of play. It will be a scoring error too, but not really the same from a "how to call it" perspective.

[Rich_Ives]

Errors must also be considered when making appeals.

Only the "thrown out of play" error is an err on an appeal (kills the appeal). Throw it into center field and it's nothing for the viability of an appeal.

[bobjenkins]

If I recall correctly, the Armbrister call was legitimized by MLB in some form of press release or discussion.

The Armbrister ruling was based on the comment now in the rule book. Although that comment existed at the time, it was in an unpublished document, and then was added to the rule book after the play. (Similar, perhaps, to how some rulings are only in MLBUM now and that document was not generally available until recently.)

[sdix00]

The Armbrister ruling was based on the comment now in the rule book. Although that comment existed at the time, it was in an unpublished document, and then was added to the rule book after the play. (Similar, perhaps, to how some rulings are only in MLBUM now and that document was not generally available until recently.)



Correct. The interp/comment existed prior to the call in 75. In fact, the NBC associate producer was a AAA fill-in umpire and fed the comment to Curt Gowdy, who opted not to use it and continue to criticize the call.

Side note: Umpires as producers? What a stupid idea. :)

[typikon]

consider a runner who scores on a force play
Not applicable. Legally scored runs cannot be unscored.


I disagree. Consider an R3 who fails to retouch at 3B. He can touch home, legally score, but he may have a good reason to retreat.

Forces can only be reinstated during continuous action
You are correct. However, in my example, if you cannot call time, then you still have continuous action (or vice-versa, actually.) You would not call time if R1 stepped off and were vulnerable to being put out.


Continuous action ends when the runners have ceased to attempt to advance, and the Defense has relaxed its attempts to put out runners. Does it require every runner to be on his base?


You can add situational what-ifs.


You were the one that added the situational what-ifs, FWIW.

But this discussion centers on the rules.

Exactly so; and I'm saying that rules do not unambiguously insist that the out at first is not a Force. What about the definition of a Force Double Play? Does that definition include the typical 2B/1B double play or not?

If you insist that there is no practical difference between a force vs a BR reaching 1B, you will get an argument.

I don't insist; it's your side that is insisting that the rules are unambiguous.

And I don't mind the argument. It's more of an open invitation to consider whether it costs us anything to concede that the out at first is a force out.

I still haven't heard a meaningful difference. Rich Ives is right: it's arbitrary. If in doubt, just go with the consensus. On the field, however, I don't waste my breath telling anyone there's not a force at first. That would be overly officious.

[Rich_Ives]

I disagree. Consider an R3 who fails to retouch at 3B. He can touch home, legally score, but he may have a good reason to retreat.



If he failed to touch 3B then he didn't legally score (for the moment). IF it was, then the defense could not appeal the miss of 3B could they? Only after the defense fails to appeal is the run officialy legally scored.

[Rich_Ives]

Exactly so; and I'm saying that rules do not unambiguously insist that the out at first is not a Force.


Of course they do. You can only get a force out on a force play and the batter-runner is not a forced runner.

AND, don't chicken out now - can you get a force out by touching the base with just the ball while holding it firmly in your hand? Stop dodging.

Is a shoe (glove, pant leg) part of a body, or must the base be touched with an actual body part.

Rule 2.00 "Ball" says if a pitch bounces and hits the batter the batter SHALL be awarded first, but 6.08(b ) says he can't go to first if he doesn't try to avoid the pitch. Which one prevails and why?

[typikon]

If he failed to tough 3B then he didn't legally score (for the moment). IF it was, then the defense could not appeal the miss of 3B could they? Only after the defense fails to appeal is the run officialy legally scored.

The point of my example was to argue that during continuous action a runner who scored could retreat and reinstate the Force at home plate. Consider bases loaded and a fly ball that is dropped, creating a force play at all a bases. The runner touches home, but then becomes concerned that the ball may have been caught, so he retreats back up the third base line to retouch. At that point, as I understand it, the runner can be forced at HP.

[sdix00]

Continuous action ends when the runners have ceased to attempt to advance, and the Defense has relaxed its attempts to put out runners. Does it require every runner to be on his base?

In my example, the defense had not relaxed its attempt, unless you consider firing the ball to F3 a non-attempt.


You were the one that added the situational what-ifs, FWIW.

Your "what-if" was a red herring. You attempted to change the conversation from considering the force at 2B to considering the force at home, which has the added 'situation' that the runner is no longer a runner and can't reinstate his force.


Exactly so; and I'm saying that rules do not unambiguously insist that the out at first is not a Force. What about the definition of a Force Double Play? Does that definition include the typical 2B/1B double play or not?

This is your best argument. Stick with it. It either supports your point, or it might be one of the 200+ mistakes in OBR.


I don't insist; it's your side that is insisting that the rules are unambiguous.

And I don't mind the argument. It's more of an open invitation to consider whether it costs us anything to concede that the out at first is a force out.

I still haven't heard a meaningful difference. Rich Ives is right: it's arbitrary. If in doubt, just go with the consensus. On the field, however, I don't waste my breath telling anyone there's not a force at first. That would be overly officious.
I see this argument as the same as mis-using then/than, who/whom, Time Play vs Timing Play. I know what you mean, but it takes me an extra beat to process it when you use that kind of language.

[typikon]

AND, don't chicken out now - can you get a force out by touching the base with just the ball while holding it firmly in your hand? Stop dodging.


I'm not playing "gotcha" with you. No matter which way I answer you're going to say "aha!!" Please relax and explain how the digression relates to my question.

Is a shoe (glove, pant leg) part of a body, or must the base be touched with an actual body part.


What if he touches the base with an untied shoelace? Is that detached?

Rule 2.00 "Ball" says if a pitch bounces and hits the batter the batter SHALL be awarded first, but 6.08(b ) says he can't go to first if he doesn't try to avoid the pitch. Which one prevails and why?

What is this? Quiz hour? I honestly don't know. I don't need to know the answers to all your quizes in order to ask a reasonable question. Probably a better response to your needling is that it doesn't seem to me that the rules were written very carefully. Consequently, you can't always make an ironclad case on a given concept when the rules are sloppy.

So far, all I've got is a Fed Rule that would need to be rewritten if we all just agreed that there is in fact a force play at first.

[typikon]

I see this argument as the same as mis-using then/than, who/whom, Time Play vs Timing Play. I know what you mean, but it takes me an extra beat to process it when you use that kind of language.

Exactly, it's an arbitrary marker. It's not unlike "its/it's". Whenever I encounter people who can't keep the two straight, I realize deep down it shouldn't matter, but I also realize that if the person can't keep the difference straight, he might be uneducated in general.

Seriously, we all have situations where some coach or player is asking whether run counted because the batter was "forced," or some other argument, does any umpire really waste his breath to remind the coach that technically there is no force at first?

[sdix00]

So far, all I've got is a Fed Rule that would need to be rewritten if we all just agreed that there is in fact a force play at first.

Repeat this line until it happens.

I will give you credit for your argument if you can just tell me who is forcing the BR.

[nopachunts]

I think we may be:

232

[celebur]

Seriously, we all have situations where some coach or player is asking whether run counted because the batter was "forced," or some other argument, does any umpire really waste his breath to remind the coach that technically there is no force at first?No, I don't waste my breath in such situations. But in this thread, we're talking to umpires. Not coaches. Not players.

[Rich_Ives]

I'm not playing "gotcha" with you. No matter which way I answer you're going to say "aha!!" Please relax and explain how the digression relates to my question.

Because it relates to strict interpretation of the rules - something you seem to be big on. The strick interpretation would say it's not an out because you have to touch the base with the body, not the ball. Sane concept on the pther questions - is clothing "body" or not. Isn't defined anywhere in the rules. Guess it must not be ;-)

I don't need to know the answers to all your quizes in order to ask a reasonable question.


So we're waiting for the reasonable question. And if you could answer the questions you might be getting closer to understanding what's going on here.


Probably a better response to your needling is that it doesn't seem to me that the rules were written very carefully.

Finally - a clue. Haven't we been trying to tell you that all along?



Responses interspaced.

[typikon]

Rich,

I appreciate your interest in my formation, but I'm not sure it's occurred to you that I'm not pushing for a "strict interpretation" of the rules.

Rather, you're the one that is quoting rules. Newbies come in here assuming there's a force at first, and you set them straight, strictly based on verbiage in the rules. These newbies are probably people familiar with the game, and they have played for years. Your basis for hammering this point home is always Rule 2.00. I'm just telling you that the same rule book contains verbiage that goes the other way.

It is rather I who am saying that the game is bigger than the rules, and sometimes the reality on the ground contradicts the rules (exactly like your tagging the base with the ball scenario). I am very confident that coaches, broadcasters and players can "play the game" at an expert level without being aware that there is not a force at first. It's not a myth that needs to be dispelled.

Interesting about tagging a base with a ball, though. I had not noticed that in the rules.

[heyblue26]

Rich,


Interesting about tagging a base with a ball, though. I had not noticed that in the rules.

Ok what happens then if the first baseman drops the ball out of his glove and picks it up in time and with the ball secured in his bare hand and he touches the base with the ball before the batter-runner touches the base? What is the call safe or out?

[bobjenkins]

Ok what happens then if the first baseman drops the ball out of his glove and picks it up in time and with the ball secured in his bare hand and he touches the base with the ball before the batter-runner touches the base? What is the call safe or out?

On a rules test where only the rule book is used? Safe.

On a rules test where the "234 errors in the book" are acknowledged? Out.

In a game? Out

(I had it a couple of weeks ago on a play at second.)