OBR 5.09(b)(6) Force Removed

[TOMUIC]

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.

 

 

[Jimurray]

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.

 

[noumpere]

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.

[TOMUIC]

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.

[Replacematt]

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.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. TOMUIC, the current rule you cite has been a part of the rule book not just for the past 40 years but since the very beginning of pro ball. In other words it actually is a fundamental part of the game.

As you know the National League played its first season in 1876. Here’s the rule for that season and a form of the rule has been in the book every year since then--

1876 National League rule VI Sec. 2. No player running the bases shall be forced to vacate the base he occupies unless by the act of the batsman in striking a fair ball. Should the first base be occupied by a base-runner when a fair ball is struck, the base-runner shall cease to be entitled to hold said base until the player running to first base shall be put out. The same rule shall apply in the case of the occupancy of the other bases under similar circumstances. No base-runner shall be forced to vacate the base he occupies if the base-runner succeeding him is not thus obliged to vacate his base.

[Mister B]

On 8/30/2021 at 5:03 PM, Matt said:

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.

Not as easy to determine working a 1 or 2 man crew for a FED game. 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Mister B said:

Not as easy to determine working a 1 or 2 man crew for a FED game. 

Might not be.

However, plenty of MiLB games are worked with 2 umpires...just saying.

[TOMUIC]

Señor Azul, are you agreeing that as long as a force out occurs on a following runner, then the moment that the preceding runner misses the next base does not matter. That is the point I have been trying to make regarding 5.09(b)(6), which would then also support the fact that the order of appeals does matter with regard to negating runs.

 

[Replacematt]

1 minute ago, TOMUIC said:

Señor Azul, are you agreeing that as long as a force out occurs on a following runner, then the moment that the preceding runner misses the next base does not matter. That is the point I have been trying to make regarding 5.09(b)(6), which would then also support the fact that the order of appeals does matter with regard to negating runs.

 

Your point is incorrect for OBR. The RIM interpretation I cited says the moment matters.

[TOMUIC]

The only Wendelsted RIM that has been cited here was the 2013 manual, which states that the order does matter when exactly 3 outs result from multiple appeals.. As Señor Azul stated, is there a more current ruling regarding this matter. I contend that the current OBR  interpretation is that the order of appeals matters.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. TOMUIC, what I posted about the history of the rule was definitely meant to support and agree with you. You are right and the others are wrong. A rule that has been in the books for 145 consecutive years would not be simply superseded by some mystery interpretation.

And I, of course, also agree that it supports the fact that the order of appeals does matter with regard to negating runs. In fact, all three codes have a rule or interpretations saying precisely that. We’ve already posted the FED and pro rulings—here’s the NCAA rule:

For the NCAA, the order of appeals does matter. It actually says so in its rule 8-6b9 Note--

2021-2022 NCAA rule 8-6

b. The appeals made under this section must take place before the next pitch, play or attempted play or before the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the dugout, if it is an inning-ending or game-ending appeal.

9) If there are two outs before the appeal on a runner, the appeal becoming the third out, no runners following the appealed out shall score, and if the appeal is a force out, no runners preceding or following the appealed out shall score (see Rule 2 – Force Play).

Note: If the defense will make more than one appeal, the defense must appeal in the correct order unless it is an advantageous “fourth out” appeal.

[Jimurray]

19 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. TOMUIC, what I posted about the history of the rule was definitely meant to support and agree with you. You are right and the others are wrong. A rule that has been in the books for 145 consecutive years would not be simply superseded by some mystery interpretation.

And I, of course, also agree that it supports the fact that the order of appeals does matter with regard to negating runs. In fact, all three codes have a rule or interpretations saying precisely that. We’ve already posted the FED and pro rulings—here’s the NCAA rule:

For the NCAA, the order of appeals does matter. It actually says so in its rule 8-6b9 Note--

2021-2022 NCAA rule 8-6

b. The appeals made under this section must take place before the next pitch, play or attempted play or before the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the dugout, if it is an inning-ending or game-ending appeal.

9) If there are two outs before the appeal on a runner, the appeal becoming the third out, no runners following the appealed out shall score, and if the appeal is a force out, no runners preceding or following the appealed out shall score (see Rule 2 – Force Play).

Note: If the defense will make more than one appeal, the defense must appeal in the correct order unless it is an advantageous “fourth out” appeal.

FED does not have any definitive interp/case play that supports the “correct” order of appeals for two forced runners. 

[TOMUIC]

Senor Azul, thank you for your response. I value your responses and know you won’t state anything that cannot be supported by rule. I have been less aggressive in my stances on this website, not because I’m not sure of myself, but I haven’t been involved as long as many of the names found here. I was hoping you would get involved in this ongoing discussion, and I am so glad that you did.

One gentleman on this site (several weeks back) who did not agree with what you and I are agreeing upon now, told me to call it the way I want and enjoy my 10U  career. That was quite a remark, but I’m not here to argue, I just want proper rule interpretations presented, just as I know you do.

[Jimurray]

24 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. TOMUIC, what I posted about the history of the rule was definitely meant to support and agree with you. You are right and the others are wrong. A rule that has been in the books for 145 consecutive years would not be simply superseded by some mystery interpretation.

And I, of course, also agree that it supports the fact that the order of appeals does matter with regard to negating runs. In fact, all three codes have a rule or interpretations saying precisely that. We’ve already posted the FED and pro rulings—here’s the NCAA rule:

For the NCAA, the order of appeals does matter. It actually says so in its rule 8-6b9 Note--

2021-2022 NCAA rule 8-6

b. The appeals made under this section must take place before the next pitch, play or attempted play or before the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the dugout, if it is an inning-ending or game-ending appeal.

9) If there are two outs before the appeal on a runner, the appeal becoming the third out, no runners following the appealed out shall score, and if the appeal is a force out, no runners preceding or following the appealed out shall score (see Rule 2 – Force Play).

Note: If the defense will make more than one appeal, the defense must appeal in the correct order unless it is an advantageous “fourth out” appeal.

NCAA only requires relaxed action appeals in the “correct” order: “Exception—No runner can be forced out if a runner who follows in the batting order is put out first� However, if a runner is put out during live action, it does not remove the force on any runners who might subsequently be declared out for a running infraction�”

[TOMUIC]

I am not sure if I’m following the last sentence of your response properly. Suppose with loaded bases and a ground ball to the first baseman who steps on first (retiring the BR)before the runner from  first is anywhere near second, and now this same runner misses second on his way to 3rd due to a wild throw, If this runner is out on appeal and it’s the third out, any runs scored ahead of him will count because his out is NOT a force out.

Again, if I’m not following your last statement properly I apologize. Also my only concern here is OBR, nothing else

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. TOMUIC, what I posted about the history of the rule was definitely meant to support and agree with you. You are right and the others are wrong. A rule that has been in the books for 145 consecutive years would not be simply superseded by some mystery interpretation.

And I, of course, also agree that it supports the fact that the order of appeals does matter with regard to negating runs. In fact, all three codes have a rule or interpretations saying precisely that. We’ve already posted the FED and pro rulings—here’s the NCAA rule:

For the NCAA, the order of appeals does matter. It actually says so in its rule 8-6b9 Note--

2021-2022 NCAA rule 8-6

b. The appeals made under this section must take place before the next pitch, play or attempted play or before the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the dugout, if it is an inning-ending or game-ending appeal.

9) If there are two outs before the appeal on a runner, the appeal becoming the third out, no runners following the appealed out shall score, and if the appeal is a force out, no runners preceding or following the appealed out shall score (see Rule 2 – Force Play).

Note: If the defense will make more than one appeal, the defense must appeal in the correct order unless it is an advantageous “fourth out” appeal.

You are incorrect. The RIM specifically says that the appeal out in the OP is a force out--when a missed base is a forced base, the force cannot be removed (unless the runner corrects the infraction.) Since both outs 2 and 3 would nullify the run, it doesn't matter the order. 

[Velho]

So where did we end up?

Is the state of the force at (A) the time of missing the base or (B) the time of the appeal used to determine if runs score?

Thanks for your patience if missed it in the above.

[TOMUIC]

Just refer to Señor Azul’s response( Oct 14) and you will have the right answer. As he stated we are right and the others are wrong. Unless they can show us a current MLB interpretation, which evidently they cannot.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

Just refer to Señor Azul’s response( Oct 14) and you will have the right answer. As he stated we are right and the others are wrong. Unless they can show us a current MLB interpretation, which evidently they cannot.

I would have to ask @Senor Azul to check his latest BRD to see if Carl Childress communicated with Wendelstedt after we had a thread here in which Carl disagreed with the WRIM interp. I have a hazy recollection that Carl may have changed his "Appeals, Order of" to reflect the WRIM interp in some later BRDs. For sure in 2011 Carl cites PBUC, circa 2000, that forced order of appeals matter. So there have been changes to the interp over time but I'm going with the WRIM 2013 interp and I won't be springing for a new book. I would suggest @TOMUIC spring for the latest WRIM and see what it says. It's a good purchase anyway and will enhance your rules knowledge.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Velho, I posted the following in a thread titled OBR ORDER OF APPEALS (Rules forum) on October 13—this is the entire WRIM interpretation not just the cherry picked part--

From the 2013 Wendelstedt Rules and Interpretations Manual (pp. 167-168):

If at the moment a runner misses a base, he was forced to touch it by reason of the batter becoming a runner, it will be a force out upon appeal, even if a following runner is put out during the play or on appeal subsequent to the miss of the base…

After the third out has been made, the defense may continue to make appeals on runners for missing bases or for not properly tagging up. They may replace any of these outs with the third out if it is advantageous in preventing runs from scoring.

This is not the case if the appeals make for exactly three outs. If multiple appeals are made which only create three outs, the defense is restricted by the order in which they appeal.

***

These interpretations also appear in the 2016 BRD. So if you are telling us that there is a newer interpretation that supersedes these two in a more recent Wendelstedt manual then it would have to have been after 2016. Still all we have is your assertion that there is a newer interpretation. Let’s see some evidence.

Please note that the interpretation Mr. Matt and Mr. Jimurray rely on is cherry picked from the reference above. Yes, if a runner misses a base when he is forced the appeal out is a forced out. I don’t think anyone has argued otherwise. But the Wendelstedt manual in the very same section—in fact, the very next page—tells us there is an exception that Messrs. Matt and Jimurray have not refuted with any evidence other than their assertion.

 

[Jimurray]

Your bolded is referring to the order of a forced and non forced appeal. That order matters if it adds up to 3 outs. It doesn’t matter for two or more forced base appeals. 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Your bolded is referring to the order of a forced and non forced appeal. That order matters if it adds up to 3 outs. It doesn’t matter for two or more forced base appeals. 

Exactly. In the OP, both the second and third outs would nullify the run.

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Yes, if a runner misses a base when he is forced the appeal out is a forced out. I don’t think anyone has argued otherwise.

 

Umm...

[Jessebleu]

I have listened long enough TomUIC and Senor Azul are definitely correct in their interpretation. The following play illustrates this. 

Play: Does the run count?
R1 and R3, 1 out. Line drive to RF, fielder makes play cleanly on one hop. R1,after touching 2nd heads back toward 1st thinking the ball was caught. By the time the ball is thrown to 1st to retire the BR (who didn’t hustle) R1 has turned around and again advanced past 2nd (while failing to touch the base) and is safe at 3rd, while R3 has long crossed the plate.
R1 is now called out on appeal for missing 2nd base for the third out.
OBR 5.09(b)(6) CLEARLY STATES THAT IF A FOLLOWING RUNNER IS RETIRED ON A FORCE PLAY THE FORCE IS REMOVED.
Hence,  when the appeal is sustained, R1 is now called out (not a force out) AND R3 scores a run.
NOTE: Had the BR somehow been retired after touching 1st base (WITH R1 ALREADY BEYOND 2nd BASE), THEN THE APPEALED OUT ON R1 WOULD BE A FORCE OUT BECAUSE A FOLLOWING RUNNER WAS “NOT RETIRED ON A FORCE OUT” AND THEREFORE NO RUN WOULD SCORE. 
THIS IS THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF 5.09(b)(6) and the rule itself (though maybe not intended) actually relieves the umpires of the “burden” of having to know the EXACT LOCATION of each runner when a force out and a separate base-running infraction occur during the same play.