Jump to content

Force Removal


TOMUIC

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

First, here's the actual link: https://baseballrulesacademy.com/2023-game-and-inning-ending-plays/

Second: I don't quite get the point of your post. Are you citing Marazzi (not an authority?) to support your (minority?) view, or to announce a change of mind?

If you and one other were right, then the order of appeals would not matter, contrary to Marazzi's statement. If R1 is forced and misses 2B, then you seem to be saying that any appeal at any time of the miss will be a force play. And if that were right, then the order of appeals on multiple runners would be irrelevant, which would contradict Marazzi.

OR: your original claim might be restricted to the trailing runner being retired on a force play that is NOT an appeal. But if that's what you're saying, Marazzi's posted play does not address that, as no runner in that play is retired except by appeal. So it still doesn't support your view, even on this interpretation of it.

Third: what's up with the aggrieved tone? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

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

After sandbagging a thread while you had actual knowledge of a change in interps why would you revisit the issue after finally giving us a cite that most likely change our minds about order of appeals. While in the past we "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"  based on an older WUM interp, I think you cited a change to their interp and also cited Evans. Memory is hazy but I think one thread ended with a question to you about why you would debate a thread when you had current knowledge that the "participants" did not have. You never answered the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, maven said:

First, here's the actual link: https://baseballrulesacademy.com/2023-game-and-inning-ending-plays/

Second: I don't quite get the point of your post. Are you citing Marazzi (not an authority?) to support your (minority?) view, or to announce a change of mind?

If you and one other were right, then the order of appeals would not matter, contrary to Marazzi's statement. If R1 is forced and misses 2B, then you seem to be saying that any appeal at any time of the miss will be a force play. And if that were right, then the order of appeals on multiple runners would be irrelevant, which would contradict Marazzi.

OR: your original claim might be restricted to the trailing runner being retired on a force play that is NOT an appeal. But if that's what you're saying, Marazzi's posted play does not address that, as no runner in that play is retired except by appeal. So it still doesn't support your view, even on this interpretation of it.

Third: what's up with the aggrieved tone? 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

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.

When Marazzi blogged on the old ABUA website he was occasionally incorrect but in play 3 I don't think he is incorrect. But he only references appeals not live action. I think the NCAA exception would be the same as we would call it in OBR:

"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"

NCAA actually required the order of appeals to be "correct" back when Wendelstedt said they didn't if the force existed at the time of the miss. Yes, I believe you have newer cites that now require the order to be correct in OBR.

NCAA: "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."

We have to assume that NCAA is citing two forced base appeals. The order always had to be correct for a force and non force appeal.

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...