beerguy55

Is this an opportunity for new umpires to learn, or does this level do more harm than good?

Being tagged while attempting to advance beyond first base (however far that may be, and may including diving back into first base) Passing another runner Interference Abandonment Leaving the basepath to avoid a tag Travesty of the game Failing to return to first, after overrunning it, in a timely manner Interference by a teammate Missed base appeal And I'm sure I'm forgetting some...but you know...basically all the ways a runner can be put out that don't involve a force or being hit by a batted ball (though I guess it's possible) I feel like I'm missing something here - I'm not sure the purpose of the question.

No, he would not - once again, not at all related to the question I'm asking, and I not sure why you would think I'm saying that. The third out was recorded by not only a forced runner, but also a preceding runner. In fact in this exact scenario order of appeals wouldn't really matter...so, even if safe on a remarkable ITPHR B4 can't score if the third out was made by a preceding runner put out on appeal 5.08(a). And why would B4 score if he was thrown out at the plate?!?!?! What makes you say this qualifier is there? Isn't it just "when the BR is declared out"? This is the question I'm asking...if B/R is put out AFTER successfully touching and passing first base, are you suggesting that R1 is still forced? Otherwise, why mention the qualifier? Scenario 1 - R1 trips and falls on his way to, but before reaching, second base...B/R rounds first and is on his way to second before realizing we have a problem. B/R is tagged out...is R1 still forced? Hint - no he is not....he may try to return to first base, and he must be tagged (not the base) to be put out. Scenario 2 - R1 misses second base on his way to third and then B/R gets in a rundown between first and second and gets tagged out. Is R1 still forced for the purposes of the appeal at 2nd? Do you believe R1 to remain forced in both of these scenarios? And if you believe R1 only remains forced in one of them, what rule/ruling/guidance supports that? As far as I can see and find in the rules, and without any case plays/guidance/rulings to demonstrate something different, when a following runner is put out, anywhere in any manner, the force is removed from all preceding runners...without exception.

Needs some gratuitous nudity.

Different scenario...this becomes the advantageous "so called" fourth out...you appeal R1, which becomes the new third out, meaning that B/R was never put out (which means the force is still on). It's never really a fourth out, it's a new third out. Runs don't count. However, let's tweak your scenario a bit...make it 1 out. In that scenario, IMO, the appeal would be a time play because B/R was put out first, removing the force on R1, even though R1 was still forced when he missed/passed second base. B/R getting out removes the force for all preceding runners. R1 is still the third out on appeal, but it's a time play and the other two runs count. And, now, let's extend it to the question I have, and the dispute I have with Tom...where R1 misses second base while forced, before B/R gets out... Tom claims that if B/R is put out before reaching first base, then that would remove the force on R1, making the appeal a time play (which would make it consistent with the order of appeals ruling)...BUT, if B/R is put out after first base (like your hypothetical), the force remains on R1. I'm looking for any case play/ruling/guidance, especially in OBR, that supports the second part of that notion, because, frankly, at this point I'm not buying it and it feels like I'm being trolled.

I have done the research - you have cited nothing but your own (incorrect) interpretation to support your claim. In short, since you have not been able to show any official third party interpretation, I can only conclude that it exists only in your imagination. And forgive me if I don't take your beliefs with a lot of weight - you're the guy who claimed that an infield fly is considered caught, even if it isn't (and then tried to pretend you didn't). You have a fundamental inability to admit when you've made a mistake. Not a good trait on a message board that is meant for learning. So, my question for ANYONE...Tom posits that, specifically to OBR but I'll take any code, if R1 is forced and misses second base while forced, that: - if B/R is put out before reaching first then R1's force is removed, and the appeal is a time play - if B/R is put out after reaching first, then R1's force remains, and the appeal is a force play By extension, if a forced runner misses their forced base, that: - if a following runner is put out while forced, the preceding runner's force is removed, and the appeal is a time play - if a following runner is put out while no longer forced the preceding runner's force remains, and the appeal is a force play Is that correct? If such an interpretation/cite/rule exists anywhere I would respectfully disagree with it, but have to accept it as gospel. I've seen no evidence that such an interpretation exists. What we do know is by rule, without any missed base considerations, if B/R is put out ANYWHERE, then R1 (or R2 or R3) is no longer forced. Period. Whether R1's reached second or not...whether he's reached second and then decided to go back to first...whether B/R and R1 are both between first and second and five feet apart from each other, or any other strange third world situation you can think of. Hell, if B/R passes R1 he's no longer forced. If B/R is put out, R1 is no longer forced. And I see nothing to suggest this is different in a missed base situation.

And to be clear, I'm not disputing order of appeals, I'm asking for the principle to be applied evenly and consistently to all similar situations in determining if a runner is forced. Makes perfect sense that appealing B/R at first would remove the force on R1 at second. Even though R1 was forced at the time he missed the base. If B/R is out, nobody is forced anymore. Conversely, the same concept should apply in ANY scenario where B/R is retired before R1 is appealed. As far as I can see, in this thread, or any other, I have yet to see a rule or cite or case play or interpretation or congressional point of order that says the status of R1's force is influenced by whether or not B/R was retired before or after reaching first base, nor likewise that the status of any runner's force is influenced by whether or not any following runner was put out while forced...but only whether or not they were put out before said forced preceding runner - regardless of whether or not it is an appeal. In short, without other proof, when a following runner is put out, the force is removed from any preceding runner...always.

If anyone is putting any weight on the "on force" statement in OBR they're misinterpreting it....keeping in mind 5.09(b) is about Retiring a Runner...5.09(c) is about Appeals. This language is under 5.09(b). 1. Grammatically, if they meant the status of the following runner, it would/should read "BY force", not "on a force play"...the language suggests the play itself...ie. a force is on...NOT that the following runner has to be forced for the scenario to occur...and the further context of the entire sentence makes it clear they're talking about the status of the preceding runner(s) 2. If taken to mean the following runner, it would then have to mean the force is NOT removed if the following runner wasn't forced when put out - we very clearly know that is not true 3. Since every other part of the rule book is very clear to show that a batter/runner is never forced, along with many umpires here on this board are quick to remind, it would be quite an egregious detour to suddenly use "force" in the language to describe the batter/runner The rule does not say a following runner must be forced when put out to lift the force on preceding runners. The rule says that if a following runner is put out the force on all other runners is removed.

I don't know why that is scary. If anything, it's consistent, and easy to administer. If B/R is retired, runners are no longer forced. The rules, in OBR, are pretty clear on that point. They do not specify anything about timing of when people reach bases, or their status when they are retired...only in the timing in whether or not B/R (or any following runner) is retired before the forced runner(s). So, if it's believed that is not clear, now you need case plays/interpretations, and as you describe them, they're inconsistent. You are saying that, before B/R is retired, when R1 misses second base...if B/R is retired one foot before first base, R1 is no longer forced...but if B/R is retired one foot after first base, R1 is still forced. Zero sense. If that is an official interpretation, can you cite it. If it's your own interpretation, it sounds very wrong.

Where? wqn5ah4c3qtivwx3jatm.pdf (mlbstatic.com) - I'm reading the 2023 version of OBR and do not see the language or verbiage you're referencing. If anything it pretty clearly says that if a following runner is put out the force is removed. This section doesn't address appeals though...and there's nothing in the OBR rule book appeals section about this specifically. Once again, taking appeals out of this conversation for a minute - do you believe, or not, that the force on R1 is removed if B/R is retired after passing first base?

Oh make no mistake...I'm not disputing the existence of these rulings...only that they're silly and inconsistent. I challenge you to find a ruling that says this is true during non-appeal force scenarios. You won't. This ruling is only applicable in missed base scenarios. As I said before...I'm all for a world where the b/r being retired removes any and all forces until the end of time...OR I'm all for a world where a forced runner who misses their base while forced remains forced until the end of time (or until corrected). It's the in between "sometimes this sometimes that" where I find the rulemakers/interpreters are being silly and overcomplicated, just for the sake of it.

And frankly, for whatever my little opinion is worth, it's a moronic ruling. In live action a force is removed no matter when the b/r is put out. Whether by "force" or not. (or any trailing runner creating the force) A runner is forced due to a batter becoming a runner...if he is no longer a runner there is no longer a force...always. The runner may return to their original base if they really wanted to. If in some weird scenario B/R got out between first and second, and then R1 got in a run down, he could go back to first. Tagging second doesn't get him out on a force. To say that matters in live action but not in an appeal is simply silly. It's inconsistent. Anything else is some rule maker sitting in a room and outsmarting himself. EDIT: I also see the problem with this thinking - A batter/runner who scores is no longer a runner....I hate life.

Unless we're getting into a line of trying to punish blatant cheating, this should be a time play, if order matters, and always matters. If we really want to nail the offense in this blatant scenario remove the need for an appeal - call it abandonment, which would occur before B/R is retired, and you could rule it a force at that point. As I said before, this is my preferred line of interpretation - if we're going to go the opposite way, then my second preference would be that the order of appeals NEVER matters...that is, if you missed the base while forced, you're always forced...and that addresses the exploit you're taking about. Just get me away from this sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't stuff. Abandonment debates aside, in a practical sense, in that scenario defense chose to allow R3 to score anyway (for whatever reason), and also chose to ignore the force at third (suicide squeeze?)...in the end they're getting the bonus of catching R2, instead of it being R2/R3 with two out the inning is over. Eject R2 and the coach while we're at it. It's an exploit, sure, but the risk/reward is one run vs one out...it shouldn't be two runs vs one out. (and it wouldn't be if, say, for example, it was only R2/R3, not bases loaded) Likewise, with bases loaded and two out on a ground ball if I'm R1 I'm may try to run full speed through second, even if it lands me in left field, to beat the throw and allow R3 to score. At that point, I can sacrifice myself, or make my way to third and maybe distract the defense enough to allow R2 to score. It's an exploit...the risk/reward is I may have beat the throw anyway.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what he is saying. The ruling is about defining when a forced runner's status is, or is not, removed. And, in short, it's not about whether it's an appeal or not, it's about whether a following runner was put out first, or not. It doesn't matter if the runner was forced when they passed/missed the base, it only matters if they're still forced...if, for example, B/R was retired at any point before that appeal is completed, there's no more force. That changes nothing about how to enforce the third out scoring rules.

And I can get behind that, even if the defense was never going after the lead runner, under the additional thinking that the forced runner never completed their obligation, so the forced status remains, no matter what happens to the following runners. But following that thinking, as well as the one you present, for consistency, I'd want to get behind the notion that the order of appeals doesn't matter at all. You missed the base while you were forced...you're not going to get a free run because of some happy accident of the defense appealing in the wrong order. Order matters or it doesn't - I hate this in between SH*#.

OK sure, but that's risk/reward as far as I'm concerned, just like any reverse DP scenario. Do you take batter/runner first, because it's the only way to get him, but now you know the lead runner is no longer forced...or do you take the more easy force (or appeal force) and risk not getting the following b/r...it's a choice the defense has to make. And I guess the question would be, let's assume it's the way the rules want it done...does putting out the B/R in live action via an appeal (rather than just a plain old out) negate the R1 appeal force? That is, does the order of live action appeals matter, or only relaxed/dead ball appeals? Or one live, one relaxed? This gets to be an ugly rabbit hole once we say there is a scenario where order of outs doesn't matter in determining what does and doesn't negate a force.

I think I understand, and I think it makes sense, that order matters - for example, if we were to do it all in live/continuing action, let's say the weird scenario where both B/R and R1 miss 1st and 2nd respectively, I think it would matter to appeal R1 then B/R in that order to negate a run that R3 may have scored. As the ball comes into the infield from the outfield, you could just tag R1 standing on third, and B/R standing on second, and be done with it. But if you did B/R first, R1's force would be removed, and the run would count, correct? It frankly shouldn't matter if it's during live action, after relaxed action, or after a dead ball and resumption of play (with proper appeals of course)...or during dead ball in FED. Nor should it matter if one appeal happens in live action, and the other after dead ball. Order is order. But I'd be really curious to see if that would be ruled differently, and why. And then I wonder, what if B/R was retired in live action, NOT on appeal, and then R1 was appealed (say after the dead ball) for missing second - does he retain his forced status because he was forced when he missed the base, or is it removed because B/R was retired? Order of outs matters. If we are to determine that order of appeals matters, then both must always be true, in all scenarios. I hope we're not in a universe where order of outs and order of appeals matters, unless only one of the outs is an appeal.

I believe, at least for OBR, this is true only if all of these conditions are met: drawn-in infielder or pitcher there was actually a throw on the way when the hindrance occurred his position was a reaction to said throw hindrance was unintentional

You shouldn't need to ask yourself these. Read the OP again. The runner avoids F2 about a foot from home plate, and in doing so misses the plate. It's pretty clear he missed the plate because F2 was in the way, and he chose not to contact F2. There was no tag to avoid. The throw came after - "Catcher then catches throw to home and tags runner" Why didn't the ump call it? Because he didn't know any better? He didn't see it? We still run into umpires, even seasoned ones, who want contact to call INT or OBS. There could be any number of reasons it wasn't called, and he may be correct or not. Based on the description - it's likely not. Yes, this will be a judgment call. The point all along was that IF this was OBS and if said OBS caused the runner to miss the plate, then he can't be appealed for missing that plate...going to your original assessment to how long it took R3 to decide to get back to the plate...it doesn't matter. My only question earlier was whether the play was on R3 and the throw just came late (Type 1)*, or if the throw came after some failed attempt to get B/R and the fielder realized R3 had missed the plate (Type 2). Simply to recognize why the play could continue after the OBS...which would have occurred at least a few seconds before the tag. *My understanding is in OBR F2 is still allowed to block the plate (unintentionally) if he is in the act of receiving a throw from a drawn-in infielder or pitcher (more likely the pitcher with 2 outs)...so this wouldn't be OBS in that one scenario.

It most certainly is an answer. Especially for this specific situation, where there was one out. Unless you want to start seeing if R1 and R2 also touched their bases. Unless there's two out, it doesn't matter. Let sleeping dogs lie. You're really going to the scorekeeper and saying "by the way, that kid is out of abandonment, don't give him the walk"? This is also an appropriate answer on how to manage that exact situation. The tenth run in a ten run mercy should be handled differently than the winning run in a tie game. If you're looking to understand the rule so you know how to enforce it in a tie game in the bottom of the 6th of the LLWS, then you also have your answer if there's one out. And you have your answer from others if there's two out. (and, frankly, with a ten run mercy I'd advise pretending you didn't notice unless the opposing coach says something - the likelihood is he wants to get out of there too - hence the guidance to not go looking for trouble - but if he wants to have the kid called out and continue the game, whether he just wants his team to get some more reps or he thinks he can win, that's his prerogative).

This, as described, is not batting "out of order"...so I think we need a little more detail, otherwise there may just be some incorrect assumptions. Is this a scenario where everyone bats, and this guy somehow got forgotten in the lineup card given to the umpire? And now is batting between Fred and George? This would be some weird hybrid of unannounced substitution...but it's really unannounced "injection", and I suspect that would be league/tourney specific to how it should be handled. Or is this a scenario where there is a fixed lineup of 9 (or 10) batters? And if that's the case, what's going on with the person who IS on the lineup card? I suppose an unannounced/forgotten DH is another scenario??

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong - and I often am - but if OBS is why the runner missed the base doesn't this absolve the runner of the requirement to touch the base - in any time frame? As an example - Batter hits one to the gap, F3 standing on first base, B/R rounds first and to avoid F3 never touches first and continues on to second. This is OBS and an appeal on the miss of first base would be denied, would it not? As I visualize it I think the ump is acknowledging OBS as it happens, and R3 would get the run regardless of what happens next (as long as it's determined that OBS is what caused him to miss the base) - what's unclear is if there is a play at the plate as R3 was being obstructed, or if the ball came to the catcher some point after, in realizing they couldn't get B/R at first (which should have been the play with two outs)

You fail to recognize the most basic concept of the appeal rule...you can tag the runner or you can tag the base. You seem to think those are two separate events - they are not. Until you understand the basics there's no real point in having any more advanced conversation, let alone the one in a million third world scenarios you keep coming up with. The answers you need are in this thread. That you fail to recognize them is on you. I'm done, have a nice day.

TLDR - you've got your answers. If you don't like them call MLB and see what they say.

As I said before, yes. Retreating three feet from second base (when not directly - or close - between the bases) would constitute moving three feet from your new path to first base. Here's the best part...that's a judgment call. You can say the runner moved three feet off the path, and that's your judgment. Period. In my judgment the runner was retreating to first base, and he moved three feet from that path. End of discussion. Can't be protested. Again, sometimes you just gotta ump. For most of the video you can't see the runner, only the catcher. When you do see the runner, I don't see any move from him backwards, only sideways. And catcher isn't really make any move at him. In short, there's just not enough here to know what the umpire saw or didn't see.