Jump to content

OBR 5.09(b)(6) Force Removed


TOMUIC

Recommended Posts

Loaded bases. One out.Ball hit sharply to center. R1 is forced out at second base AFTER R2 has PASSED AND MISSED third base. Both R3 and R2 score. Now R2 is out on appeal for missing 3rd base for the third out. Since OBR 5.09(b)(6) clearly states that THE FORCE IS REMOVED ON A RUNNER IF A FOLLOWING RUNNER IS PUT OUT ON A FORCE PLAY, it appears that R3’s run will count despite the popular thinking that the force existed at the time the base was missed, which in many instances is indeed the case, BUT NOT SO IF 5.09(b)(6) is properly applied.

If “when the missed base occurs” is the only factor in determining whether the force is still in place, then there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for 5.09(b)(6) to include the wording “ON A FORCE PLAY”. Simply stating that “retiring a following runner before  a runner reaches the base originally forced to”would be a more than sufficient interpretation. However, the wording of 5.09(b)(6) has been in the OBR no less than forty years,so to categorize it as just one of the many “errors” found in the rules is somewhat  narrow minded.

I would think 5.09(b)(6) may also play a role in the seemingly ongoing debate regarding the “order of appeals”.

Looking forward to healthy discussion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

Loaded bases. One out.Ball hit sharply to center. R1 is forced out at second base AFTER R2 has PASSED AND MISSED third base. Both R3 and R2 score. Now R2 is out on appeal for missing 3rd base for the third out. Since OBR 5.09(b)(6) clearly states that THE FORCE IS REMOVED ON A RUNNER IF A FOLLOWING RUNNER IS PUT OUT ON A FORCE PLAY, it appears that R3’s run will count despite the popular thinking that the force existed at the time the base was missed, which in many instances is indeed the case, BUT NOT SO IF 5.09(b)(6) is properly applied.

If “when the missed base occurs” is the only factor in determining whether the force is still in place, then there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for 5.09(b)(6) to include the wording “ON A FORCE PLAY”. Simply stating that “retiring a following runner before  a runner reaches the base originally forced to”would be a more than sufficient interpretation. However, the wording of 5.09(b)(6) has been in the OBR no less than forty years,so to categorize it as just one of the many “errors” found in the rules is somewhat  narrow minded.

I would think 5.09(b)(6) may also play a role in the seemingly ongoing debate regarding the “order of appeals”.

Looking forward to healthy discussion.

 

 

Carl Childress was not narrow minded. In his 2008 BRD he took advantage of this wording to make it a difference between OBR and FED/NCAA and concocted a play where a run would score because a following runner was "put out" in FED/NCAA but would not score in OBR because a following runner was not a force out. Quotes from that difference include: "neatly illustrates a problem with the OBR language." and "When someone behind a runner makes an out, the force is removed (OBR language notwithstanding)". He mentioned removing that third world play in his 2011 BRD and just noted the difference between FED/NCAA and OBR without delving into any ramifications.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

Loaded bases. One out.Ball hit sharply to center. R1 is forced out at second base AFTER R2 has PASSED AND MISSED third base. Both R3 and R2 score. Now R2 is out on appeal for missing 3rd base for the third out. Since OBR 5.09(b)(6) clearly states that THE FORCE IS REMOVED ON A RUNNER IF A FOLLOWING RUNNER IS PUT OUT ON A FORCE PLAY, it appears that R3’s run will count despite the popular thinking that the force existed at the time the base was missed, which in many instances is indeed the case, BUT NOT SO IF 5.09(b)(6) is properly applied.

If “when the missed base occurs” is the only factor in determining whether the force is still in place, then there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for 5.09(b)(6) to include the wording “ON A FORCE PLAY”. Simply stating that “retiring a following runner before  a runner reaches the base originally forced to”would be a more than sufficient interpretation. However, the wording of 5.09(b)(6) has been in the OBR no less than forty years,so to categorize it as just one of the many “errors” found in the rules is somewhat  narrow minded.

I would think 5.09(b)(6) may also play a role in the seemingly ongoing debate regarding the “order of appeals”.

Looking forward to healthy discussion.

 

 

There shouldn't be much of a discussion.  The incorrect / literal rules wording is why there are supplemental materials and interpretations..

An argument can be made that the wording should be more precise, but that's not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2021 at 1:39 PM, noumpere said:

There shouldn't be much of a discussion.  The incorrect / literal rules wording is why there are supplemental materials and interpretations..

An argument can be made that the wording should be more precise, but that's not going to happen.

The wording is quite precise, it says that if a following runner  is put out on a force play, the force is removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2021 at 4:42 PM, TOMUIC said:

Loaded bases. One out.Ball hit sharply to center. R1 is forced out at second base AFTER R2 has PASSED AND MISSED third base. Both R3 and R2 score. Now R2 is out on appeal for missing 3rd base for the third out. Since OBR 5.09(b)(6) clearly states that THE FORCE IS REMOVED ON A RUNNER IF A FOLLOWING RUNNER IS PUT OUT ON A FORCE PLAY, it appears that R3’s run will count despite the popular thinking that the force existed at the time the base was missed, which in many instances is indeed the case, BUT NOT SO IF 5.09(b)(6) is properly applied.

If “when the missed base occurs” is the only factor in determining whether the force is still in place, then there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for 5.09(b)(6) to include the wording “ON A FORCE PLAY”. Simply stating that “retiring a following runner before  a runner reaches the base originally forced to”would be a more than sufficient interpretation. However, the wording of 5.09(b)(6) has been in the OBR no less than forty years,so to categorize it as just one of the many “errors” found in the rules is somewhat  narrow minded.

I would think 5.09(b)(6) may also play a role in the seemingly ongoing debate regarding the “order of appeals”.

Looking forward to healthy discussion.

 

 

There have been errors in the rules that have existed for over a century.

Wendelstedt RIM 8.4.3b (II) states that the status of the runner (forced or unforced) for an appeal is determined at the moment they miss the base, even if a following runner is put out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.






×
×
  • Create New...