TOMUIC

To answer Mr. Jim Murray’s request, the Wendelstadt instructor just happened to answer the question over the phone when I was calling down to try to obtain a manual. I was surprised but he agreed with Jim Evans. Now Jim Evans and I only email when I have something that I can’t find in writing. He takes the time to give me the answer and I posted his email regarding order of appeals at the time that he answered me. I really don’t want to reconnect with him on something that he was very definite about. I think the best way to get a definitive rule citing would be from Rich Marazzi. His 2023 game ending/inning ending plays (#3)’ clearly shows how the order of appeals works. We also had that play #3 posted on a previous thread several weeks ago; someone who is a member of baseball rules Academy can probably contact Marazzi. But once again I can’t picture him putting those plays in writing if he had any doubt that they were wrong.For now, that’s the best I can do.

I agree that these situations will probably only happen when there is a game ending hit and baserunners fail to touch the next base. (but knowing the level of rules knowledge that today’s MLB players possess, this may happen more than we think lol)

(1) Codes that say that the force is removed as long as a following runner is put out would have to allow runs to score on the following play. Loaded bases, one out.On a long hit, R3 and R2 score, R1 also scores but misses second base, the BR is thrown out at third (now 2 out). R1 is now called out on appeal for missing second base. (3 outs) Now any rules code that follows what is stated in paragraph (1) above would have to allow two runs to score on the play cited above. Very scary!!

I wrote OBR in front of the situations I presented just to indicate the rules that we were working under. Sorry if I made people think the situations are printed in the OBR.

When the BR is retired AFTER passing first base BUT BEFORE R1 reaches (or passes) second base, R1 is no longer forced.

It has been determined that the order of appeals does matter (thanks to a Wendelstadt school instructor, Jim Evans, and most recently Rich Marazzi). Now since the order in which the appeals are made determines if the force is “kept alive”, what does NOT matter is the moment that the preceding runner misses the base originally forced to. In other words, when the defense appeals the trailing runner first, then the preceding runner(both originally forced), the force on the preceding runner is removed, as dictated by the “order of appeals”, REGARDLESS of the fact that the missed base occurred while the runner was still in a force situation. This illustrates that what really matters is that the trailing runner was put out on a FORCE PLAY and NOT whether(or not) the preceding runner was forced at the moment he missed the base originally forced to, and this result is supported by the line in OBR 5.09(b)(6)which says…however, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed… Also, keep in mind, that for the most part, outs recorded during “regular” action yield the exact same benefits to the defense as appealed outs do, so very little should be made of the difference in the way the outs are recorded. When the BR Is retired AFTER passing first base BUT BEFORE R1 reaches (or passes)second base, R1 is no longer forced.

Just refer to OBR 5.09(b)(6) and you will see the “verbiage” that is part of this entire discussion regarding when runners are and are not in force situations.The “rules are the rules are the rules” and need to be properly applied.

(OBR) Loaded bases 1 out batter hits base clearing hit and gets thrown out at third. (Two out).now the defense appeals that the runner originally on first missed second for the third out. This out is a force out and no run scores . Reason: the Force is not removed just because the batter runner was retired behind the other runners.

The following should have been posted with my previous post from yesterday, but here it is. Loaded bases one out. A base hit scores R3,R2. R1 misses 2nd base and slides safely into third, followed by the BR thrown out trying for a double.(now 2out). Now, on appeal, R1 is called out for missing 2nd base (for the third out). In this situation, the moment R1 misses second base DOES matter because the trailing runner(BR) was NOT retired on a “force play”. Hence, R1 was in a force situation when he missed second base, so R1 is the third out and a force out and no runs score. The point is that the type of out (force or non force) recorded on a trailing runner absolutely does matter in determining if a preceding runner is in a force situation at the moment he misses the base originally forced to. [5.09(b)(6)]. Simply put: 1) When a following runner is retired on a “non-force” out, then the moment the preceding runner misses the base DOES determine if a force situation exists. 2) When a following runner is retired on a FORCE out, the force is removed on the preceding runner, making the moment the preceding runner misses the base IRRELEVANT. Statement 2 is exactly what occurs when “the order of appeals” is carried out correctly.

It has been determined that the order of appeals does matter (thanks to a Wendelstadt school instructor, Jim Evans, and most recently Rich Marazzi). Now since the order in which the appeals are made determines if the force is “kept alive”, what does NOT matter is the moment that the preceding runner misses the base originally forced to. In other words, when the defense appeals the trailing runner first, then the preceding runner(both originally forced), the force on the preceding runner is removed, as dictated by the “order of appeals”, REGARDLESS of the fact that the missed base occurred while the runner was still in a force situation. This illustrates that what really matters is that the trailing runner was put out on a FORCE PLAY and NOT whether(or not) the preceding runner was forced at the moment he missed the base originally forced to, and this result is supported by the line in OBR 5.09(b)(6)which says…however, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed… Also, keep in mind, that for the most part, outs recorded during “regular” action yield the exact same benefits to the defense as appealed outs do, so very little should be made of the difference in the way the outs are recorded.

I am saying that if a following runner is retired on a force play either by normal action [ (5.09(b)(6)] or as a result of an appealed out), then any appealed out recorded on a preceding runner cannot result in a force out. I believe that’s what Marazzi is saying in “Play 3”. You May not consider Marazzi an authority, but many would and he is currently the rules consultant for numerous major league teams. I don’t think he would be giving out incorrect interpretations unless he vets them first with whoever the authorities are.

In the past, the concept of a force remaining in effect or being removed (on a preceding runner) has been discussed at great length on Umpire Empire. Almost all partipants, other than myself and one other member, have stated that IF A RUNNER IS FORCED AT THE MOMENT THE BASE IS MISSED, THEN AN APPEAL ON THAT RUNNER RESULTS IN A FORCE OUT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FOLLOWING RUNNER IS RETIRED ON A FORCE OUT OR NOT. NOW, RICH MARAZZI, in his 2023 Game and Inning Ending Plays explains this concept in “PLAY 3”. Clearly,one can see that the moment the base is missed is irrelevant if the defense does not appeal in the “proper order” to “keep the force in effect” Here is the actual link so all can see for themselves. 2023 Game and Inning Ending Plays. basebllrulesacademy.com

If you carefully read Jim Evans’ answer, it is clear that he is referring to a ball that is clearly caught and then intentionally dropped to the ground. If a ball is allowed to hit the back of a fielders glove or part of his body without ever really controlling the ball, then it probably should not be considered intentionally dropped. In fact, some rules codes(USA and NCAA SOFTBALL) actually define an intentionally dropped ball as one that is “legally and actually” caught and then dropped to the ground. Unfortunately the OBR are not that detailed because I think they want the flexibility of calling it intentionally dropped when a major league player “controls” the ball prior to “letting” it drop to the ground.in fact the definition of an intentionally drop wall does not even exist in the OPI. Also people get caught up in the idea that you can’t have an intentionally dropped ball unless there are runners in a force situation. The truth is the act of intentionally dropping a ball can occur regardless of the baserunning situation. Well I guess you’re saying that you’re going to let a line drive that could be caught easily by an infielder (with loaded bases) be ruled an intentional drop, simply because the fielder deliberately touched the ball on it’s way to the outfield. I wish you luck!

All rules codes say that the ball must be touched to emphasize that a ball can never be considered intentionally dropped if allowed to touch the ground first. The rationale for this could be that if the defense is willing to take a chance on being able to control where the ball goes after bouncing untouched, then so be it. Conversely, merely “touching” a ball that “could be caught” should NOT NECESSARILY result in an intentionally dropped ball, if following the touching there is no ( or very little) control of where the ball “drops” to the ground. As Wendelstadt says (2015 WRIM), the fielder is intentionally dropping the ball “to set up a double play”. If a Fielder lets an easily catchable line drive hit his closed fist, or the back of his glove, or let’s hit it off his chest, he certainly has no guarantee that it’s going to drop at his feet so he can set up a double play. Hence an intentional drop SHOULD NOT BE CALLED. Ex. Loaded bases, one out. A line drive is hit to the third baseman, he can easily catch it but rather let’s it hit off his chest (hoping to pick it up off the ground and set up an easy double play). However, the ball hits off his chest and continues down the third baseline into left field, as runners are circling the bases . If we employ the thinking that was presented here earlier, the umpire would have to call time, kill the play, call the batter out, and put the runners back at their original bases . If that occurred, there would be chaos. So once again, the wording of “touching the ball” as a requirement to have an intentional drop is only presented to emphasize that, at a bare minimum, the ball must be touched before it hits the ground. Again, inherent in determining if a ball has been intentionally dropped, the fielder must either catch it or control the ball prior to deliberately dropping it to the ground. Simply touching a ball that’s easily catchable is not the criteria necessary to determine that a ball has been intentionally dropped.

If you carefully read Jim Evans’ answer, it is clear that he is referring to a ball that is clearly caught and then intentionally dropped to the ground. If a ball is allowed to hit the back of a fielder’s glove or part of his body without ever really being controlled, then it probably should not be considered intentionally dropped. In fact, some rules codes(USA and NCAA SOFTBALL) actually define an intentionally dropped ball as one that is “legally and actually” caught and then dropped to the ground. Unfortunately the OBR are not that detailed because I think they want the flexibility of calling it intentionally dropped when a major league player “controls” the ball prior to “letting” it drop to the ground. In fact, the actual definition of an intentionally dropped ball does not even exist in the OBR. Also, people get caught up in the idea that you can’t have an intentionally dropped ball unless there are runners in a force situation. The truth is the ACT of intentionally dropping a ball can occur regardless of the baserunning situation. For example: Second and third less than two out. The second baseman camps under a pop-up in very short right field. He CATCHES the ball and then (for some reason) intentionally lets it fall to the ground.The Umpire correctly makes an emphatic out call (on the catch).The runner from third was several steps off the bag while the ball was in flight, when he sees the ball drop to the ground he advances to the plate and slides in safely(without ever retouching third base). If properly appealed, this runner will be called out. The point here is that (for whatever reason) there was the act of intentionally dropping a ball, which still resulted in a catch and ensuing live action, because runners were NOT in a force situation.

The very concept of an INTENTIONALLY DROPPED BALL (in MLB and other rules codes) is that the ball is caught, or at the very least controlled, and then deliberately dropped to the ground. I had no trouble understanding what Jessebleu meant when she said “intentionally dropped” just as Jim Evans had no problem understanding my question when I said “intentionally dropped” to him back in 2014. Put another way, an intentionally dropped ball is tantamount (in the umpire’s judgment) to “catching” the ball AND for that reason results in the batter being called out when the rule is enforced (other than when the IFF takes precedence) Just stop and think for a moment, when we DO ENFORCE the rule for an intentionally dropped ball, is the batter called out to protect the base runners? Not at all, protecting the runner(s) is achieved when “TIME” is called. THE BATTER IS CALLED OUT BECAUSE THE UMPIRE HAS JUDGED THAT A “CATCH” has been made. Hence, if the ball remains live because the IFF RULE TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE INTENTIONAL DROP RULE (which BY RULE it does), then runners must retouch (tag up) in order to avoid being out on appeal, exactly as JIM EVANS said back in 2014.

Back in 2014 I received an email response from Jim Evans regarding this exact question. I had contacted Jason Kline, who worked for Jim at his Academy. Jason and I discussed the question and then sent it to Jim. Below is Jim‘s CORRECT response. (Please note the rule citing quoted was from the OBR before it was recodified) Also, for obvious reasons, personal information has been redacted.

Thank you Senor Azul, I had been in touch with umpire Attire and they said the books would be in at the end of May. Obviously that wasn’t the case. Thank you for checking

Can anyone tell me where I can purchase a 2023 MLBUM. Having a tough time locating one.

Actually there are several posts on this site in the recent past that have indicated that NCAA treats “last time by” just like federation ,as per Paronto in 2013. So unless they have made an official change since then, it appears that they are siding with federation, which is unfortunate.(IMO)

Fair enough. However knowing how closely aligned NCAA is with OBR, and since they don’t make any specific statements regarding deliberately missed bases, at the moment I am inclined to think that they would interpret LTB just like OBR. As Wendelstadt indicates, who needs to judge “by how much” a base is missed and what a runner’s intentions are . It just makes so much more sense to just apply the concept of LTB as it is written.

Does NCAA align with OBR (Wendelstadt), or do they concern themselves with a base being deliberately missed as Federation does? I am hoping they treat LTB just as OBR does?

Last time by is definitely part of the OBR. You can find it in the MLBUM.

Sorry Exact NCAA RULE citing is 8-6-a “Notes 1 & 2

NCAA 8-6-“Note 2” clearly states that the “next base” or “base beyond” refers to the position of the runner at the time the ball went out of play.(Same as OBR) No reference is made to the direction of the runner or whether or not he is attempting to return. Note 3 (right below Note 2) refers to the runner’s award, which IS determined by whether or not he is attempting to return to his original base after a caught fly ball (same as OBR), BUT has nothing to do with determining the LEGALITY of the runner’s return to his original base. Finally, I recall seeing an NCAA test question recently whose answer seems to contradict Note”2” cited above, which doesn’t do anyone any good!