TOMUIC

In the play you described if R2 is appealed out for the third out no run scores because he was in a force situation at the time he missed third base because the runner behind him was not retired on a force out. it is not true that anytime a following runner is retired, then the force is removed on preceding runners. loaded bases, one out a base clearing hit scores all three runners. The batter runner is retired sliding into third base for the second out. Now the defense appeals that the runner originally on first missed second for the third out. In this example, no runs score. Even though a following runner, (the batter runner) was retired, the force is still in effect when they appeal the runner from first missing second. It has always been that way. However, when the following runner is retired on a force out, the force is removed on preceding runners. This is clearly illustrated in Rich Marazzi’s play number three, along with two examples I offered earlier in this thread, which align with Marazzi play number three

In your example R2 is not forced any longer because at the time the following runner was retired on a non-force out he had not reached the base he was forced to, that’s the whole point

For those that have found this particular thread interesting or have even joined the discussion, I think it’s safe to say that Rich Marazzi’s “ inning ending and game ending plays #3” illustrates not only that the defense must appeal in the proper order to keep the force alive, but also that the moment a preceding runner misses the base is meaningless if a following runner is retired on a force out. As mentioned in earlier discussions, in play #3 the preceding runner was certainly in a force situation when he missed the base, and yet when the first appeal takes place behind him at the previous base (at a much later moment in time), his missed base is no longer a force out. With this in mind, let’s look at two situations that align with the same thought process. R1,R3 one out. R1 is running on the pitch as the batter lines a single to right field. R1 has rounded second (and missed it) PRIOR to the right fielder throwing the ball to the first baseman who yells to the umpire that the BR ( who is attempting to get back to first) missed first as he rounded the bag. The umpire declares the BR out on this continuous action appeal.(of course R3 has long crossed the plate while this action is taking place). Now on a standard appeal from the pitching position, R1 is declared out for failure to touch second base. This play is no different than Rich Marazzi‘s #3, except that the first of the two “inning ending appeals” was during continuous action. However, no matter how you slice it, the force was removed on R1 when the BR was retired before legally touching first base.(treated like a force out), again illustrating that the moment the base was missed means nothing if the following runner is retired on a force out. Here is the second situation: R1,R3 and 1 out. R1 is running on the pitch and the batter hits a slow ground ball to second base. R1 has rounded (and missed) second before the BR is retired easily at first base. Once again, R3 has scored during this action. The defense now appeals that R1 missed second on his way to arriving safely at third. R1 is declared out for the third out of the inning. Once again, just like in Marazzi‘s play #3 and the first situation cited here, a following runner was retired on a “force out” which removes the force on a preceding runner and renders “meaningless” the moment the base was actually missed. The key here is to realize that outs recorded during natural action or by appeal, have the same impact when it comes to whether or not additional outs on that play are “force outs” or not. Lastly, if a following runner is retired on something OTHER than a force out, then indeed the moment a preceding runner misses a base determines whether the appealed out on that runner is a force out or not, which can be INFERRED by the language found in: OBR 5.09(b)(6).

Sorry Jim I just saw this now. I guess it’s possible. I just think that their wording at TIMES is very poor. To me OBR still words things the best, even though sometimes they are little vague. Oh well

Jim, I just think the NCAA has it wrong and they don’t have anyone there to realize the mistake in their thinking.

I’m sorry, if I apply the bold print to the following: R1, R3 one out. On a bloop hit to right, R3 scores, Batter passes R1 between first and second (now 2 out) R1 now misses second and is safe at third. R1 is out on appeal for the 3rd out. I must conclude that the force remains in place on R1 and hence R3’s run is negated, which makes no sense. What am I missing here?

When I read the bold print from 8-5-j the following situation comes into mind: R1.R3 one out. on a bloop hit to right field, R3 scores, R1 goes halfway and the batter runner runs right up behind him. The right fielder throws the ball in and the BR is tagged out.(2 out) after this R1 misses second and is safe at third. Now when the defense appeals at second base for the third out, we know that the run should count, but the bold print in 8-5-j seems at the very least “contradictory”.

Please respond so I know that you are following what I’m saying

Rich Marazzi’s play #3 makes it very clear that if R1 is appealed out FIRST (at 2nd base) followed by R2 appealed out (at 3rd base), then the FORCE IS REMOVED, resulting in a TIME PLAY, which proves that the moment the base was MISSED IS MEANINGLESS. Just think about it, the preceding runner missed 3rd base well before the appeal was made on the following runner (at 2nd base) and yet the result was a third out that was not a force. Hence, a following runner being retired ON A FORCE OUT(during regular action or by appeal as in play#3) means the moment the base was missed means nothing and there is no longer a force in place on any runner, which is the point made in OBR 5.09(b)(6). Hope this helps.

Please refer to my post at 2:05 PM on Thursday, which lists two paragraphs 1 and 2. Those two paragraphs answer any question you might have on any situation that you can think of for this topic.

Maybe I can simplify all of this with the following two general statements: 1) if a following runner is retired on a force play, then the force is removed on any preceding runner, and the moment this preceding runner misses the base originally forced to is meaningless, hence any subsequent appeal on this preceding runner results in a time play. 2) if a following runner is retired on something other than a force out, then the moment a preceding runner misses the base (originally forced to) does indeed matter, which means a subsequent appeal may or may not result in a force out.

I am in total agreement with your evaluation of both situations. I’m not sure some others would be convinced. But the rule that I’ve cited (5.09(b)(6) specifically says when a following runner is retired ON A FORCE OUT the force is removed on the preceding runner, which is what occurs when the following runner was an “APPEALED FORCE OUT” in Marazzi’s play#3, making the moment (the preceding runner) missed the base a non factor. Put another way, if 5.09(b)(6) did not say “ON A FORCE PLAY”, then when a following runner was retired (force or not) would result in any out recorded on a preceding runner always being a non force, hence ALWAYS being a TIME PLAY, which would be ABSURD.

Yes, in the example given, the following runner was retired on a “non-force out”, therefore the time that the runner missed second base is what matters and hence he was still in a force situation when he missed second base, so no run scores. Had the batter-runner been retired before touching first base by natural action or appeal, then the force is removed on any runner preceding him and the moment that the runner missed second base doesn’t mean anything, which has been proven by play #3 in Rich Marazzi article. Once again, 5.09(b)(6) supports this thinking.

Regardless of the base running situation, in order to keep the force alive, appeals must be made in proper order.

Just to clarify, Rich Marazzi‘s play #3 is slightly different from my explanation of the two appeals. I have the appeals at first base and then second, he had an example with loaded bases. The same result occurs however, in either scenario.

It appears that those of us who are interested or have reacted to this topic of “order of appeals” are willing to agree that how appeals are carried out does indeed determine if the “force is kept alive”. (As shown in Rich Marazzi’s “Game and Inning Ending Plays” #3) However, a rule citing to support an interpretation or a situation is always preferred. Without ruffling anyone’s feathers, let me offer the following statement from OBR 5.09(b)(6) which says “however, if a following runner is retired on a FORCE OUT , the force is removed, and the runner must be tagged”. which is obviously true for live continuous action. However,when an appeal is made, simply the base has to be touched, whether the runner is forced or not at the time of the appeal. Now we know already that because the following runner was retired on a force out, (namely the first appeal made in play #3) that the next appeal made(at second) is not a force. This is exactly what the rule I’v cited says. put Simply when a following runner is retired on a force out, the force is removed on a preceding runner, whether that runner is retired during natural live action or on appeal. However, if a following runner is retired on a play that is not a force out, then the moment the preceding runner misses the base originally forced to will determine if the appealed out on him is a force or not. ( In other words, was the runner still in a force situation when he missed the base)

Thanks Jimmurry 🤙

Thanks Jim 🤙

2023 Game and Inning Ending Plays - Baseball Rules Academy

Keep in mind that another citing is Rich Marazzi‘s 2023 inning and game ending appeals (play #3) which confirms that the order of appeals matters in order to keep the force alive.

Gentlemen, I have certainly made my share of mistakes over the years. However, regarding this situation with the BR returning to touch first base (after initially missing it) prior to taking his award, I am optimistic that members will determine that the award does not “reset”.

If the runner is on or past second when the errant throw is released, his award his home plate, if the ball goes dead before he reaches third then he is not allowed to touch third if he wants to legally correct his mistake of missing first base. In either case, the award is home, whether he goes back to correct this mistake or not, this is not a caught flyball. Once again, talk to a real rules clinician and he will tell you that this is correct .

Sorry, missed bases DO NOT “reset” the award when the runner returns (legally) to touch the missed base. The award is solely based on his location at the time of the throw (or pitch). The award IS “reset” on a CAUGHT flyball with the runner attempting to return to the base left TOO SOON. As correctly stated earlier by a member, that is a special case and is an exception to the overthrow award procedure. ANY rules clinician “worth their salt” will know that what is stated above is absolutely correct!

Fine, think what you want, but eventually you will come across the correct answer and I don’t expect you to let us know that you were wrong!

You guys are throwing opinions around for these topics. They are not opinions, they are stated( or not stated) clearly in the rules and in the MLBUM. NEVER has an award been “reset” on a play where the runner legally went back and touched a missed base!! NEVER NEVER NEVER But it won’t matter you guys have to see a “citing” and even after seeing a citing, you argue that the citing is incorrect !!