beerguy55

I'm all over the map...2022 saw Alanis (July) and Bryan Adams (November). 2024 I'm seeing Journey (with Toto), Pink and Bruce Springsteen. My top concerts for me are Paul McCartney at Skydome (now Rogers Centre) in 1989, and then again in 2014 at Grizzly Stadium in Missoula, MT. And then G'N'R at The Gorge in Washington, 2017. I'd watch almost any act at The Gorge - my favorite venue I've experienced. Def Leppard x3, Poison, Tesla, Nightranger, Trooper, Gowan, Anvil, Anthrax, John Mellancamp, Elton John, The Who, Imagine Dragons, Little Big Town, Joan Jett, KISS, The Cult...and then Canadian acts you've probably never heard of (Colin James, Honeymoon Suite, Loverboy, April Wine, Kim Mitchell, Tragically Hip, Platinum Blonde, etc, etc)

Widening the running lane isn't going to solve anything. The same fundamental issue will remain - the offense is pissed off when it is called, the defense is pissed off when it isn't. I have yet to see a called, or uncalled, RLI scenario, at any level, that did not lead to arguments. Whether they're right or not is beside the point. It's a piss poor rule that just creates bad will. The rule is unnecessary and causes more problems than it solves. And the last 45 feet between home and first is treated completely differently than any other location on the basepaths...in how/whether a runner interferes (intentionally) with a throw...vs unintentionally with a catch. Kill the rule.

That was the point of the video in my post - regardless of whether something exists in a book or not, we seem to know what to do.

5.09(a)(8) speaks of the actions of a batter after a ball has been hit or bunted. Regardless, there does seem to be a shift in the standard of when a batter becomes a runner, or even batter-runner, and that 'batter" infractions (like 7.3.x) seem to apply even though they are no longer a batter - it would appear that for the purposes of these rulings the batter is still a "batter" until shortly after he gets rid of his bat. More specifically, the obligations of a batter extend to the first few seconds after he becomes a runner, where he is apparently in limbo. I have no problem with the principle/spirit of the ruling...the letter of it is problematic (what else is new).

Once he gets ball four he's no longer a batter, he's a runner. I suspect in OBR this would be nothing? OBR requires interference with a thrown ball, by a runner, to be intentional to declare the runner out. 5.09(b)(3) If he threw his bat on ball three (thinking it's ball four) and interfered with the throw he would still be a batter, and be out under 6.03(a)(3)...I think. Having said that, the case play in FED above seems to consider the player still a "batter" for the purposes of that ruling (which is why it's under 7.3.5, and not 8.4.1)...so perhaps OBR has taken the same interpretation. Nothing under 8.4.1 (a batter-runner is out when) supports this, so I can only conclude FED considers him still a batter, in spite of 8.1.1(3)

Specifically SLOW PITCH softball can be different. As stated above, many (not all) slow pitch leagues and tournaments don't require the batter to round the bases when hitting the ball out of the park. In fact, they don't want it. It's a time saver, and it removes any possible notion of gloating and other crap while he's rounding the bases. I have never seen this applied in fast pitch softball. However, the pitch in the video is odd...it's not windmill, it's not even half windup, but doesn't look like it has any arc either.

Where do the rules ANYWHERE mention a "towering" fly ball? The word "towering" appears nowhere in OBR. OBR defines a FLY BALL and a LINE DRIVE...and the rule you cite only mentions a fly ball being caught resulting in an out. No rule specifically says a line drive caught is an out...but we've ignored that problem for ~150 years. It's all moot though - I don't see anything in OBR that defines a "batted ball". But we somehow know that too.

My reply was more about extra innings in general...as much as you and I enjoy them from a game appreciation perspective, there are some people that just want to go home. (and some of them are umpires) In context, the decision about ghost runners is more about saving pitchers than time....but time is a happy benefit....for those who just want to go home.

The tournament volunteers who want to go home don't like extra innings. But really, the time saving from the runner on second is just a side benefit. This is about saving arms. That's why they did it in MLB, and I see no reason not to do it in any amateur level of ball.

Oddly, OBR has definitions for BUNT, FAIR BALL, FOUL BALL, FLY BALL, GROUND BALL, LINE DRIVE, FOUL TIP, and INFIELD FLY that all reference "batted ball" - eg. a FLY BALL is a "batted ball" that...but there is no definition for a "batted ball".

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*#.