Jump to content

OBR 5.09(b)(6) Revisited


TOMUIC

Recommended Posts

OBR 5.09(b)(6) Revisited 

 

Loaded bases, 1 out. Batter bunts and the 1st baseman makes a diving attempt and fields the ball cleanly (on one hop). By the time he touches 1st base, barely retiring the batter-runner, R1 has missed and passed 2nd base, while R2 has stopped between second and third, not sure if the ball was caught in flight. NOW if the ball is thrown to third,  R2 MOST CERTAINLY HAS TO BE TAGGED TO BE RETIRED ( no one would argue otherwise)!

Yet, many here say that R1 would be considered forced out if he was called out on appeal for missing 2nd base! So, in essence, we now have the lead runner (R2) NO LONGER FORCED, yet the runner immediately following him (R1) is still considered in a FORCE SITUATION! (WOW)

So let’s carry out this play to its conclusion. Say the 1st baseman’s throw to third to retire R2 is wild, allowing R2 to cross the plate as R1 advances to 3rd ( without ever  touching 2nd base). Now the defense appeals and R2 is called out for missing 2nd base for the third out.

Now the popular thinking on this thread (other than SENOR AZUL)  is  that the appealed third out in this play is a  FORCE OUT , BECAUSE OF “WHEN” THE RUNNER MISSED 2nd BASE, hence nullifying the runs scored by R3 and R2. Once again, this line of thinking has the lead runner no longer “forced”,  and yet another runner (from an immediate following base) still considered in a force situation. Somewhat “faulty” thinking?

However, if one simply applies OBR 5.09(b)(6) on this play, then the out on the BR at 1st base (considered a force) simply removes the force on R1, REGARDLESS of WHEN R1 actually misses 2nd base.

Conversely , “ if a following runner is retired in a manner OTHER THAN ON A FORCE PLAY, “THEN THE MOMENT THE PRECEDING RUNNER MISSES THE NEXT BASE DOES MATTER ”,  WITH REGARD TO WHETHER AN EVENTUAL APPEAL AT THAT BASE RESULTS IN A FORCE OUT OR NOT.

I have never attempted to claim that the MOMENT a forced base is missed is inconsequential. Rather, I am attempting to point out, as 5.09(b)(6) clearly does, that A FORCE OUT ON A FOLLOWING RUNNER RENDERS THAT MOMENT A MOOT POINT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TOMUIC said:

OBR 5.09(b)(6) Revisited 

 

Loaded bases, 1 out. Batter bunts and the 1st baseman makes a diving attempt and fields the ball cleanly (on one hop). By the time he touches 1st base, barely retiring the batter-runner, R1 has missed and passed 2nd base, while R2 has stopped between second and third, not sure if the ball was caught in flight. NOW if the ball is thrown to third,  R2 MOST CERTAINLY HAS TO BE TAGGED TO BE RETIRED ( no one would argue otherwise)!

Yet, many here say that R1 would be considered forced out if he was called out on appeal for missing 2nd base! So, in essence, we now have the lead runner (R2) NO LONGER FORCED, yet the runner immediately following him (R1) is still considered in a FORCE SITUATION! (WOW)

So let’s carry out this play to its conclusion. Say the 1st baseman’s throw to third to retire R2 is wild, allowing R2 to cross the plate as R1 advances to 3rd ( without ever  touching 2nd base). Now the defense appeals and R2 is called out for missing 2nd base for the third out.

Now the popular thinking on this thread (other than SENOR AZUL)  is  that the appealed third out in this play is a  FORCE OUT , BECAUSE OF “WHEN” THE RUNNER MISSED 2nd BASE, hence nullifying the runs scored by R3 and R2. Once again, this line of thinking has the lead runner no longer “forced”,  and yet another runner (from an immediate following base) still considered in a force situation. Somewhat “faulty” thinking?

However, if one simply applies OBR 5.09(b)(6) on this play, then the out on the BR at 1st base (considered a force) simply removes the force on R1, REGARDLESS of WHEN R1 actually misses 2nd base.

Conversely , “ if a following runner is retired in a manner OTHER THAN ON A FORCE PLAY, “THEN THE MOMENT THE PRECEDING RUNNER MISSES THE NEXT BASE DOES MATTER ”,  WITH REGARD TO WHETHER AN EVENTUAL APPEAL AT THAT BASE RESULTS IN A FORCE OUT OR NOT.

I have never attempted to claim that the MOMENT a forced base is missed is inconsequential. Rather, I am attempting to point out, as 5.09(b)(6) clearly does, that A FORCE OUT ON A FOLLOWING RUNNER RENDERS THAT MOMENT A MOOT POINT.

5.09(b)(c) does not clearly point out that the the force is removed when a missed base is appealed and the force existed at that the time of the miss. If fact the wording of that rule needs some common sense applied.

"(6)  He or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner. However, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed and the runner must be tagged to be put out." The BR out at 1B is not a force play but yes it does remove the force in live action. "The force is removed as soon as the runner touches the base to which he is forced to advance, and if he overslides or overruns the base, the runner must be tagged to be put out." While this sentence follows the following runner being put out sentence we know that the force has already been removed in live action and that force is not again removed by the runner touching the base. This refers to when the runner touches the base while still forced. "However, if the forced runner, after touching the next base, retreats for any reason towards the base he had last occupied, the force play is reinstated, and he can again be put out if the defense tags the base to which he is forced;" The force play is reinstated if it still exists.

In your OP you do not have a forced and unforced runner: "So, in essence, we now have the lead runner (R2) NO LONGER FORCED, yet the runner immediately following him (R1) is still considered in a FORCE SITUATION! (WOW)" Both have to be tagged. But if the missed base was appealed the Wendelstedt interp considers it a miss of a forced base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

OBR 5.09(b)(6) Revisited 

 

Loaded bases, 1 out. Batter bunts and the 1st baseman makes a diving attempt and fields the ball cleanly (on one hop). By the time he touches 1st base, barely retiring the batter-runner, R1 has missed and passed 2nd base, while R2 has stopped between second and third, not sure if the ball was caught in flight. NOW if the ball is thrown to third,  R2 MOST CERTAINLY HAS TO BE TAGGED TO BE RETIRED ( no one would argue otherwise)!

Yet, many here say that R1 would be considered forced out if he was called out on appeal for missing 2nd base! So, in essence, we now have the lead runner (R2) NO LONGER FORCED, yet the runner immediately following him (R1) is still considered in a FORCE SITUATION! (WOW)

So let’s carry out this play to its conclusion. Say the 1st baseman’s throw to third to retire R2 is wild, allowing R2 to cross the plate as R1 advances to 3rd ( without ever  touching 2nd base). Now the defense appeals and R2 is called out for missing 2nd base for the third out.

Now the popular thinking on this thread (other than SENOR AZUL)  is  that the appealed third out in this play is a  FORCE OUT , BECAUSE OF “WHEN” THE RUNNER MISSED 2nd BASE, hence nullifying the runs scored by R3 and R2. Once again, this line of thinking has the lead runner no longer “forced”,  and yet another runner (from an immediate following base) still considered in a force situation. Somewhat “faulty” thinking?

However, if one simply applies OBR 5.09(b)(6) on this play, then the out on the BR at 1st base (considered a force) simply removes the force on R1, REGARDLESS of WHEN R1 actually misses 2nd base.

Conversely , “ if a following runner is retired in a manner OTHER THAN ON A FORCE PLAY, “THEN THE MOMENT THE PRECEDING RUNNER MISSES THE NEXT BASE DOES MATTER ”,  WITH REGARD TO WHETHER AN EVENTUAL APPEAL AT THAT BASE RESULTS IN A FORCE OUT OR NOT.

I have never attempted to claim that the MOMENT a forced base is missed is inconsequential. Rather, I am attempting to point out, as 5.09(b)(6) clearly does, that A FORCE OUT ON A FOLLOWING RUNNER RENDERS THAT MOMENT A MOOT POINT.

Can one of the admins change this user's name to Don Quixote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2021 at 4:01 PM, TOMUIC said:

OBR 5.09(b)(6) Revisited 

 

Loaded bases, 1 out. Batter bunts and the 1st baseman makes a diving attempt and fields the ball cleanly (on one hop). By the time he touches 1st base, barely retiring the batter-runner, R1 has missed and passed 2nd base, while R2 has stopped between second and third, not sure if the ball was caught in flight. NOW if the ball is thrown to third,  R2 MOST CERTAINLY HAS TO BE TAGGED TO BE RETIRED ( no one would argue otherwise)!

Yet, many here say that R1 would be considered forced out if he was called out on appeal for missing 2nd base! So, in essence, we now have the lead runner (R2) NO LONGER FORCED, yet the runner immediately following him (R1) is still considered in a FORCE SITUATION! (WOW)

So let’s carry out this play to its conclusion. Say the 1st baseman’s throw to third to retire R2 is wild, allowing R2 to cross the plate as R1 advances to 3rd ( without ever  touching 2nd base). Now the defense appeals and R2 is called out for missing 2nd base for the third out.

Now the popular thinking on this thread (other than SENOR AZUL)  is  that the appealed third out in this play is a  FORCE OUT , BECAUSE OF “WHEN” THE RUNNER MISSED 2nd BASE, hence nullifying the runs scored by R3 and R2. Once again, this line of thinking has the lead runner no longer “forced”,  and yet another runner (from an immediate following base) still considered in a force situation. Somewhat “faulty” thinking?

However, if one simply applies OBR 5.09(b)(6) on this play, then the out on the BR at 1st base (considered a force) simply removes the force on R1, REGARDLESS of WHEN R1 actually misses 2nd base.

Conversely , “ if a following runner is retired in a manner OTHER THAN ON A FORCE PLAY, “THEN THE MOMENT THE PRECEDING RUNNER MISSES THE NEXT BASE DOES MATTER ”,  WITH REGARD TO WHETHER AN EVENTUAL APPEAL AT THAT BASE RESULTS IN A FORCE OUT OR NOT.

I have never attempted to claim that the MOMENT a forced base is missed is inconsequential. Rather, I am attempting to point out, as 5.09(b)(6) clearly does, that A FORCE OUT ON A FOLLOWING RUNNER RENDERS THAT MOMENT A MOOT POINT.

With the ball in the infield do you seriously think R1 would be so far past 2B that he wouldn't just step back to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking way too deep into this one!

Once the BR is retired at 1B, the force on any and all other runners is off.  R1 was forced to run to second when the batter became a batter runner.  But once the BR is out, no other defined force plays are possible.

Yes, R1's running violation is appealable for the third out.  But now any scores are timing plays.

Mike

Las Vegas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vegas_Ump said:

Looking way too deep into this one!

Once the BR is retired at 1B, the force on any and all other runners is off.  R1 was forced to run to second when the batter became a batter runner.  But once the BR is out, no other defined force plays are possible.

Yes, R1's running violation is appealable for the third out.  But now any scores are timing plays.

Mike

Las Vegas

In OBR according to Wendelstedt if the force existed at the time of the miss it will be a forced base appeal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vegas_Ump said:

Looking way too deep into this one!

Once the BR is retired at 1B, the force on any and all other runners is off.  R1 was forced to run to second when the batter became a batter runner.  But once the BR is out, no other defined force plays are possible.

Yes, R1's running violation is appealable for the third out.  But now any scores are timing plays.

Mike

Las Vegas

That could be one way to interpret the rule.  It's not, I don't think, the current OBR interp.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

That could be one way to interpret the rule.  It's not, I don't think, the current OBR interp.

It is. It's in the RIM I got this year, as I said in the other thread. This has not changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vegas_Ump said:

Looking way too deep into this one!

Once the BR is retired at 1B, the force on any and all other runners is off.  R1 was forced to run to second when the batter became a batter runner.  But once the BR is out, no other defined force plays are possible.

Yes, R1's running violation is appealable for the third out.  But now any scores are timing plays.

Mike

Las Vegas

Incorrect. In OBR, a force is determined at the time the base is missed and no play on any other runner has any bearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is, indeed, an odd interpretation, and my humble opinion is Wendelstadt has simply outsmarted himself...overthinking it and overcomplicating it.

Because, now, an umpire needs to determine if the base was missed just before or just after the batter/runner (or another forced runner following the forced runner that missed the base) was put out .   It certainly would be much simpler for everyone (and supported by the letter of rule) if it didn't matter...if the batter is out there are no forced runners anymore.  Same with forced runners and preceding forced runners.

Having said that, that would then make order of appeals important.

 

Sure, I guess there could be a way to game it, by cutting across the field and "missing" the base earlier, but that would also take a lot of clairvoyance to know the forced runner/batter behind you will be put out first, not to mention a lot of silliness, and general incompetence by the defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

It is, indeed, an odd interpretation, and my humble opinion is Wendelstadt has simply outsmarted himself...overthinking it and overcomplicating it.

Because, now, an umpire needs to determine if the base was missed just before or just after the batter/runner (or another forced runner following the forced runner that missed the base) was put out .   It certainly would be much simpler for everyone (and supported by the letter of rule) if it didn't matter...if the batter is out there are no forced runners anymore.  Same with forced runners and preceding forced runners.

Having said that, that would then make order of appeals important.

 

Sure, I guess there could be a way to game it, by cutting across the field and "missing" the base earlier, but that would also take a lot of clairvoyance to know the forced runner/batter behind you will be put out first, not to mention a lot of silliness, and general incompetence by the defense.

I think this is simpler. I just need to know what the status of that runner was when the infraction occurred, tuck it into my brain, and officiate the rest of the play. 

This is also probably just a matter of how minds work, too, but this approach makes so much more sense than having the force removed on something that occurred on a different runner after the infraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going off memory here, but I'm thinking of an email chain about ten years ago I initiated that had Jim Paronto and Jim Evans (I can't remember if Hopkins was involved.)

I posited a bases-loaded situation with 2 out and a clean double with BR attempting to stretch it into a triple. R1 misses 2B. The play naturally plays out with BR being thrown out at 3B.

The defense then appeals R1. Under the OBR interpretation, no runs score because it was a force at the time the base was missed, and it's a favorable fourth out. Under NCAA, the out on BR negates the force, so only R1's run is erased.

That NCAA enforcement makes literally no F*#King sense to me (and my choice of words are intentional because of how strongly I feel.) The offense can choose to play for an extra base AND save all but one of the runs even though they were the violators. The BR can negate a force situation at a base they've already passed. Miss a forced base? Everyone might as well keep running, because there's no risk in doing so. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matt said:

I'm going off memory here, but I'm thinking of an email chain about ten years ago I initiated that had Jim Paronto and Jim Evans (I can't remember if Hopkins was involved.)

I posited a bases-loaded situation with 2 out and a clean double with BR attempting to stretch it into a triple. R1 misses 2B. The play naturally plays out with BR being thrown out at 3B.

The defense then appeals R1. Under the OBR interpretation, no runs score because it was a force at the time the base was missed, and it's a favorable fourth out. Under NCAA, the out on BR negates the force, so only R1's run is erased.

That NCAA enforcement makes literally no F*#King sense to me (and my choice of words are intentional because of how strongly I feel.) The offense can choose to play for an extra base AND save all but one of the runs even though they were the violators. The BR can negate a force situation at a base they've already passed. Miss a forced base? Everyone might as well keep running, because there's no risk in doing so. 

I don't know what the NCAA rules were back then but the current rules would make that advantageous fourth out a force out. Where NCAA differs from OBR is if it was 1 out and the batter missed 1B also appealing him first in relaxed action would make the appeal of missing R2 2B not a force any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I don't know what the NCAA rules were back then but the current rules would make that advantageous fourth out a force out. Where NCAA differs from OBR is if it was 1 out and the batter missed 1B also appealing him first in relaxed action would make the appeal of missing R2 2B not a force any more.

I'm not so sure. The email was from 2014. I don't think anything has changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Matt said:

I'm not so sure. The email was from 2014. I don't think anything has changed. 

This rule existed since at least 2013, my bold:

8-5-j. "The individual fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags the runner or the base after the runner has been forced to advance because the batter became a runner; 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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beer guy is properly applying 5.09(b and by the way the current interpretation in OBR is that the order of appeals DOES matter!!

In the OP cited the force on R1 at 2nd remained in effect because the BR was not retired at 1st (like being forced) but rather was out at 3rd, resulting in no need to apply 5.09(b)(6) and therefore making the moment of the missed  base relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

Beer guy is properly applying 5.09(b and by the way the current interpretation in OBR is that the order of appeals DOES matter!!

The order of appeals does matter if one is a missed forced base and one is a missed base that was not forced that add up to the third out. But who/what are you citing as to whether the order of two forced base appeals matters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TOMUIC said:

Beer guy is properly applying 5.09(b and by the way the current interpretation in OBR is that the order of appeals DOES matter!!

There has never been an order of appeals question in anything you've asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

This rule existed since at least 2013, my bold:

8-5-j. "The individual fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags the runner or the base after the runner has been forced to advance because the batter became a runner; 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."

The dangers of having multiple (old) email threads on related topics...

So, there were multiple questions being asked in those emails, and there was a conflation of two plays. The bolded is correct.

Now, the question is if I want to bring up some logic that was mentioned in those emails...well, I'll bring up one bit: The existence of the force out being defined at the time of the miss was not started by Wendelstedt; it was them concurring with Evans that it should be how it is treated, so it was not original in 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, Matt said:

I think this is simpler. I just need to know what the status of that runner was when the infraction occurred, tuck it into my brain, and officiate the rest of the play. 

This is also probably just a matter of how minds work, too, but this approach makes so much more sense than having the force removed on something that occurred on a different runner after the infraction.

I see what you're saying...I just thought it would be easier to know whether or not the batter is out.   Rather than those bang-bang scenarios where the b/r got out at virtually the same time R1 passed/missed second base.   Though, I suppose in a two man crew if the timing is this close you're only seeing the out at first, so you'll not see a missed base at second happen.

 

18 hours ago, Matt said:

I'm going off memory here, but I'm thinking of an email chain about ten years ago I initiated that had Jim Paronto and Jim Evans (I can't remember if Hopkins was involved.)

I posited a bases-loaded situation with 2 out and a clean double with BR attempting to stretch it into a triple. R1 misses 2B. The play naturally plays out with BR being thrown out at 3B.

The defense then appeals R1. Under the OBR interpretation, no runs score because it was a force at the time the base was missed, and it's a favorable fourth out. Under NCAA, the out on BR negates the force, so only R1's run is erased.

That NCAA enforcement makes literally no F*#King sense to me (and my choice of words are intentional because of how strongly I feel.) The offense can choose to play for an extra base AND save all but one of the runs even though they were the violators. The BR can negate a force situation at a base they've already passed. Miss a forced base? Everyone might as well keep running, because there's no risk in doing so. 

And then this is where my position intuitively falls apart. :) 

Having the batter get out at a point past where the infraction occurred it does seem a little strange to remove the force.  Not to mention the risk/reward problems that you mention.

In fact, I'll go one further.   What if the b/r scored in your scenario?   After scoring, isn't he no longer a runner?  If he's no longer a runner, there can be no more force, right?? Or, does the force remain?

In your risk/reward statement at the end, there's either zero risk for the batter/runner after R1 misses second, or the defense could be better off letting him go all the way, then they'll get the force in the appeal...and that means the offense is better off having the batter abandon somewhere before home.   No matter how that gets spun, it's not baseball.  It's a mess.

For what it's worth, I think my mind is changed...the OBR interp seems to make more sense....broadly speaking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current OBR INTERPRETATION is that the order of appeals DOES MATTER, EVEN IF BOTH APPEALS ARE FORCE PLAYS. This was not always the case, but according to Jim Evans the interpretation has  changed and under today’s interpretation an appeal on a following runner REMOVES THE FORCE ON OTHER RUNNERS! Jim sent me this current interpretation via Email on 9/23/2021. I also spoke to Matt (an instructor at Wendelstedt’s School) on or about Oct 20 (last month) and he confirmed what Jim said.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TOMUIC said:

The current OBR INTERPRETATION is that the order of appeals DOES MATTER, EVEN IF BOTH APPEALS ARE FORCE PLAYS. This was not always the case, but according to Jim Evans the interpretation has  changed and under today’s interpretation an appeal on a following runner REMOVES THE FORCE ON OTHER RUNNERS! Jim sent me this current interpretation via Email on 9/23/2021. I also spoke to Matt (an instructor at Wendelstedt’s School) on or about Oct 20 (last month) and he confirmed what Jim said.

 

 

So why not post that info in the original thread instead of revisiting with this thread without advising of what you already knew? 

  • Thanks 1
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...