Vacating a base

[Guest Mike is]

Runners on 1st and 2nd. 1 out. Ground ball to short. SS fields ball near bag, runner on second does not advance but stands on bag. SS tags guy standing on second, steps under him to tag bag therefore creating two outs to end the inning. Added measure, SS meets runner from first in front of bag to tag him out. Runner on second then advances to third. We all say inning over with both outs made on second, tagged both runners because the runner on second didn't advance until after he was tagged standing on base. Runner was called safe at third. Umpire argument saying he didn't have to leave the bag at 2. In book, rule states that following runners are entitled to a bag in a force situation meaning the runners at both second and first must vacate the bag, according to the language written in rule book.

Question is, why was the runner at second not forced off the bag in a batted ground ball situation but the runner on first was. It doesn't make sense. Rule 7.03b and 8-2-8 says the following runner is entitled to the bag he is standing on.

Root of question is this: in force play situation, is runner required to vacate the base the moment the ball is batted into play not withstanding a fly ball.

[scrounge]

Well, he doesn't have to vacate the base - but if he's tagged before he reaches the base to which he's forced to advance, he's out. In your case, you had what the result should have been exactly right, R2 was out upon being tagged, R1 was out when the base was touched. Now, if that happened in reverse order, the base touched first, then R1 is out on the force, but that then would remove the force from R2, making him safe since he can now legally stay on 2B.

[beerguy55]

7 minutes ago, Guest Mike is said:

Root of question is this: in force play situation, is runner required to vacate the base the moment the ball is batted into play not withstanding a fly ball.

As he is forced the base is not a safe haven for him.  He can stay there all he wants...but will be out if he is tagged, as long as the batter and R1 are not out.

[Guest To add...]

9 minutes ago, scrounge said:

Well, he doesn't have to vacate the base - but if he's tagged before he reaches the base to which he's forced to advance, he's out. In your case, you had what the result should have been exactly right, R2 was out upon being tagged, R1 was out when the base was touched. Now, if that happened in reverse order, the base touched first, then R1 is out on the force, but that then would remove the force from R2, making him safe since he can now legally stay on 2B.

I have also been told that even though R2 was tagged, as long as he was standing on the base in which he was legally entitled to, he is still safe upon the tag. R1 is not awarded the base until he reaches safely therefore allowing R2 to stand on base until R1 reaches if he wants in which case R1 is legally entitled to base as following runner and R2 will be out on tag for occupying a base he does not have the right to.

Very confusing as it defies all fundamental teaching. 

[maven]

18 minutes ago, Guest To add... said:

I have also been told that even though R2 was tagged, as long as he was standing on the base in which he was legally entitled to, he is still safe upon the tag.

This statement is correct.

But in your play, once the batter becomes a runner, R2 is no longer legally entitled to 2B (nor R1 to 1B). That's why we say he is forced to advance, and that the play F6 made on him was a force play.

The concept of 'legally entitled' applies only to runners on a base, and only when there are 2 runners on 1 base: one runner is entitled to it, so it is not safe haven for the other one. That concept does not apply here, as the play never involved 2 runners on a base (retired runners, yes, but they're entitled only to a seat in the dugout).