noumpere

It was also very clearly stated in more than one of the annual clinics I attended way back when.

Agreed -- and that's why the situations are different. The defense can still negate the rune in the "forced to advance abandonment situation." But, if the run were allowed to score in the "forced to advance but interferes" situation, the offense could (in theory -- in practice it's pretty unlikely) benefit from it's mistaken and might even interfere on purpose to "prevent" a force out and let the run score.

It's the location of the ball that matters--so foul ball in your example. 2-16-1 ART. 1 . . . A foul is a batted ball: d. that, while on or over foul territory...

The rule is correct. The base is in fair ground, so the part about "hitting a foreign object" will not apply. And, of course, I only pasted the parts of the rule relevant to the OP. Lots of other ways for a ball to become fair / foul.

From a very old NFHS rule book: 2-5-1 ART. 1 . . . A fair ball is a batted ball which: f. while on or over fair territory, touches the person of an umpire or player, their clothing or equipment; or 2-16-1 ART. 1 . . . A foul is a batted ball: d. that, while on or over foul territory, touches the person of an umpire or a player or any object foreign to the natural ground; or Note that the bold is part of foul ball, but not part of fair ball. So, when the batted ball hits an object foreign to the natural ground over fair territory, it's nothing, yet.

I'd protest. ;)

If I were still umpiring (and under the rules at that time), I'd reason that A is *sometimes* true while B is always true. I also recognize the conflict between B (two outs)and the conditions of the question (one out) -- but I'd ignore that--just like I'd ignore that fact that, according to the question (assuming it was copied correctly), F2 is the one running outside the running lane.

FIFY. And., it's pretty clearly stated.

Why is that a legal move in FED?

I think you mis-remember (or else I do ). In OBR, a pitcher is allowed a "momentary adjustment" of the ball in the wing-up--he can then separate the hands without it being a balk. But, once the momentary adjustment has ended, it's still a balk to separate the hands. That's at least implied in the FED case play. Edit: Oh -- I just realized you are (probably) asking about taking the runner with the hands already joined. Yes, that's a "don't do that" in OBR -- and it should be, imo, in FED as well. I always read the case play as "as part of his action in taking the rubber F1 joins his hands ..."

Lots of pitcher "reposition" the front foot multiple times *while coming set*. Merely repositioning it once does not mean the pitcher has come set. That's play (a) in the case cited. Once the pitcher has come set he may not (legally) reposition the front foot. That's play (b) in the case cited.

1) Yes. 2) No. see https://umpire-empire.com/topic/73772-fed-dh-rule-change/

iirc, no one in this thread made such a claim.

No, I wouldn't agree without some specific guidance to that effect. I see way too many written documents where "i.e.," and "e.g.," are mis-used. And, if they mean it exactly as it's written, then the old example play where "F8 moves forward to glove the fly ball, continues running toward the dugout, trips over second base and the ball comes out of the glove" would NOT be a catch.

At least until the statute of limitations has expired.