Jump to content
  • 1

Force Out/Order of Appeals (OBR)


Jessebleu

Question

ForceOut/Order of Appeals (OBR)

I would like to know if I understand the topic of order of appeals/force out after following the threads in the recent past regarding this topic. I have provided the following example along with my understanding of the correct answer. I hope that members will respond to confirm whether or not my understanding is correct.

Loaded bases one out. On bloop hit to right field, R3 scores, R1 advances to second base. The BR rounds first (missing the bag). The first baseman takes a throw from right field and steps on first base, appealing to the umpire before the BR can get back to first (now two out). R2, who went halfway on the bloop hit, misses third base (BEFORE the appealed out at first base)and then advances to home plate.
The first baseman now throws to third and R2 is called out on appeal (now 3 outs).
My understanding is that since this inning ended on two appeals equaling exactly 3 outs, the order of these appeals should matter, and therefore R3 legally scores a run. To me this means that the appealed out at first base (for the second out) removed the force on a preceding runner, therefore the third out appeal (at third base) on R2 is not a force, allowing R3 to score a run. I also recall reading in an earlier post that Rich Marazzi explained that the defense did not keep the “force alive” because of the order that the defense appealed in a similar baserunning situation.
Also, in my attempt to find a rule in OBR that would support this concept of order of appeals, I was only able to find a rule that was also mentioned somewhere in these discussions in the past. That particular rule, 5.09(b)(6), has a sentence in it that says “ if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed”. 
This seems to me to be the one statement that supports this whole idea of the order of appeals mattering, which then makes the moment that a base is missed irrelevant if indeed a following runner is retired on a force out.(via regular action, continuos action appeal or an appeal completed after the ball is put back in play).

I am looking forward to responses from the membership regarding my understanding of this entire topic. Thanks to all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

From Jaksa Roder (2022):

Chapter 9 'Appeals', Appeal of a Runner’s failure to touch or retouch (page 79):

NOTE: If a consecutive runner has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner, and he is forced at the moment he misses his advance base, an appeal of that base is always a force out. EG: bases loaded, one out. The batter triples. R1 missed second and the batter-runner missed first. First the defense successfully appeals against the batter-runner, then R1. The appeal out of the batter-runner does not negate the fact that R1 was forced when he missed the base. Rl's appeal out (third out) is also a force out; R2 and R3's runs are negated (see Chapter 10-I-D).


Chapter 10 'Determining a Run" (page 90):
A determination of whether an out is a force out or not can be the factor in deciding if a run counts. E.G.: bases loaded, one out. The batter grounds a ball to the shortstop, who tosses the ball to second for a force out. The throw to first is overthrown. The batter-runner is awarded second; R2 and R3 are awarded home. Assume the R2 missed third and an appeal against him at third is upheld: such out is a third out. The crucial question relative to run determination is: is the appeal out a force out? If so, the R3 cannot score, and if not, it is a time play. If R2 was forced at the time he missed third, his out is a force out, and R3 is not a run. However, if the force out at second occurred before R2 missed third, then the force was removed against him (a following consecutive runner was out), the out is not a force, and R3 scores (such would probably be the case). [NCAA 8-5-j]

 

I thought I saw somewhere in OBR or MiLB Manual language regarding force/unforced at time of miss on an appeal play but can't find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 hours ago, Jessebleu said:

ForceOut/Order of Appeals (OBR)

I would like to know if I understand the topic of order of appeals/force out after following the threads in the recent past regarding this topic. I have provided the following example along with my understanding of the correct answer. I hope that members will respond to confirm whether or not my understanding is correct.

 

We would like to respond but can't confirm your understanding. @Velho's 2022 cite from J-R agrees with an older Wendelstedt interp that if the force existed at the time of the miss it was a forced base appeal. @TOMUIC has given us a change to that interp confirmed by Evans and a Wendelstedt or MiLB school instructor which I believe confirms that appeals or force outs must be done in proper order except NCAA adds this language which might apply to your live action example: "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." I don't really know how that last sentence is applied in NCAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

It also might matter whether any of the appeals are during live action (as in the OP) or during relaxed action.

 

It was (but I don't know the current standard) the case in at least one rules code, that the OP would result in NO RUN because the appeal on the BR was during live action.  If play had stopped and THEN the defense made the two appeals, the order of the appeals would matter and the RUN WOULD SCORE if the defense appealed BR and then R2; NO RUN if the defense appealed R2 and then BR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think I understand, and I think it makes sense, that order matters - for example, if we were to do it all in live/continuing action, let's say the weird scenario where both B/R and R1 miss 1st and 2nd respectively, I think it would matter to appeal R1 then B/R in that order to negate a run that R3 may have scored.  As the ball comes into the infield from the outfield, you could just tag R1 standing on third, and B/R standing on second, and be done with it.   But if you did B/R first, R1's force would be removed, and the run would count, correct?

It frankly shouldn't matter if it's during live action, after relaxed action, or after a dead ball and resumption of play (with proper appeals of course)...or during dead ball in FED.  Nor should it matter if one appeal happens in live action, and the other after dead ball.  Order is order. But I'd be really curious to see if that would be ruled differently, and why.

And then I wonder, what if B/R was retired in live action, NOT on appeal, and then R1 was appealed (say after the dead ball) for missing second - does he retain his forced status because he was forced when he missed the base, or is it removed because B/R was retired?

Order of outs matters.  If we are to determine that order of appeals matters, then both must always be true, in all scenarios.  I hope we're not in a universe where order of outs and order of appeals matters, unless only one of the outs is an appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
51 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

  I hope we're not in a universe where order of outs and order of appeals matters, unless only one of the outs is an appeal.

I think the live action exception is to allow two outs to happen. 1 out, bases loaded, R1 misses 2B and advances to 3B while R3 and R2 score. The BR is played on somewhere on the basepaths having touched his bases. If you require the appeal of R1 first you loose the out possible on the BR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
54 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I think the live action exception is to allow two outs to happen. 1 out, bases loaded, R1 misses 2B and advances to 3B while R3 and R2 score. The BR is played on somewhere on the basepaths having touched his bases. If you require the appeal of R1 first you loose the out possible on the BR. 

OK sure, but that's risk/reward as far as I'm concerned, just like any reverse DP scenario. 

Do you take batter/runner first, because it's the only way to get him, but now you know the lead runner is no longer forced...or do you take the more easy force (or appeal force) and risk not getting the following b/r...it's a choice the defense has to make.

And I guess the question would be, let's assume it's the way the rules want it done...does putting out the B/R in live action via an appeal (rather than just a plain old out) negate the R1 appeal force?  That is, does the order of live action appeals matter, or only relaxed/dead ball appeals?  Or one live, one relaxed? 

This gets to be an ugly rabbit hole once we say there is a scenario where order of outs doesn't matter in determining what does and doesn't negate a force.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
5 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

OK sure, but that's risk/reward as far as I'm concerned, just like any reverse DP scenario. 

Do you take batter/runner first, because it's the only way to get him, but now you know the lead runner is no longer forced...or do you take the more easy force (or appeal force) and risk not getting the following b/r...it's a choice the defense has to make.

And I guess the question would be, let's assume it's the way the rules want it done...does putting out the B/R in live action via an appeal (rather than just a plain old out) negate the R1 appeal force?  That is, does the order of live action appeals matter, or only relaxed/dead ball appeals?  Or one live, one relaxed? 

This gets to be an ugly rabbit hole once we say there is a scenario where order of outs doesn't matter in determining what does and doesn't negate a force.

 

The fielders involved in the live action play, appeal or not, might not even know of the missed base. After the play another fielder or the dugout might initiate an appeal. That might be why the live action exception exists in interps and in the actual rule in NCAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
26 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

The fielders involved in the live action play, appeal or not, might not even know of the missed base. After the play another fielder or the dugout might initiate an appeal. That might be why the live action exception exists in interps and in the actual rule in NCAA.

And I can get behind that, even if the defense was never going after the lead runner, under the additional thinking that the forced runner never completed their obligation, so the forced status remains, no matter what happens to the following runners. But following that thinking, as well as the one you present, for consistency, I'd want to get behind the notion that the order of appeals doesn't matter at all. 

You missed the base while you were forced...you're not going to get a free run because of some happy accident of the defense appealing in the wrong order.

Order matters or it doesn't - I hate this in between SH*#.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
50 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

And I can get behind that, even if the defense was never going after the lead runner, under the additional thinking that the forced runner never completed their obligation, so the forced status remains, no matter what happens to the following runners. But following that thinking, as well as the one you present, for consistency, I'd want to get behind the notion that the order of appeals doesn't matter at all. 

You missed the base while you were forced...you're not going to get a free run because of some happy accident of the defense appealing in the wrong order.

Order matters or it doesn't - I hate this in between SH*#.

 

Back when Wendlestedt and it looks like J-R said the order of appeals didn't matter if the force existed at the time of the miss others argued that the order did matter and in fact NCAA has it in their rules other than live action. Others argued that a team should know how to appeal in the correct order. I argued that a team's fielders might be appealing one runner in the wrong order not knowing that the spotter from the dugout was just telling the coach about the other miss so you should allow "incorrect" order. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

It has been determined that the order of appeals does matter (thanks to a Wendelstadt school instructor, Jim Evans, and most recently Rich Marazzi). Now since  the order  in which the appeals are made determines if the force is “kept alive”, what does NOT matter is the moment that the preceding runner misses the base originally forced to. In other words, when the defense appeals the trailing runner first, then the preceding runner(both originally forced), the force on the preceding runner is removed, as dictated by the “order of appeals”, REGARDLESS of the fact that the missed base occurred while the runner was still in a force situation. This illustrates that what really matters is that the trailing runner was put out on a FORCE PLAY and NOT whether(or not) the preceding runner was forced at the moment he missed the base originally forced to, and this result is supported by the line in OBR 5.09(b)(6)which says…however, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed…

Also, keep in mind, that for the most part, outs recorded during “regular” action yield the exact same benefits to the defense as appealed outs do, so very little should be made of the difference in the way the outs are recorded.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, TOMUIC said:

Also, keep in mind, that for the most part, outs recorded during “regular” action yield the exact same benefits to the defense as appealed outs do, so very little should be made of the difference in the way the outs are recorded.

 

If I understand correctly what you are saying, I don't agree!  If the third out is not a force out, it becomes a time play.  If the third out is a force out, no runs score.  If the third out is the batter/runner at first base, no runs score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
17 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

If I understand correctly what you are saying, I don't agree!  If the third out is not a force out, it becomes a time play.  If the third out is a force out, no runs score.  If the third out is the batter/runner at first base, no runs score.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what he is saying. 

The ruling is about defining when a forced runner's status is, or is not, removed.   And, in short, it's not about whether it's an appeal or not, it's about whether a following runner was put out first, or not.   It doesn't matter if the runner was forced when they passed/missed the base, it only matters if they're still forced...if, for example, B/R was retired at any point before that appeal is completed, there's no more force.

That changes nothing about how to enforce the third out scoring rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
6 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

That has absolutely nothing to do with what he is saying. 

The ruling is about defining when a forced runner's status is, or is not, removed.   And, in short, it's not about whether it's an appeal or not, it's about whether a following runner was put out first, or not.

That changes nothing about how to enforce the third out scoring rules.

 

1 hour ago, TOMUIC said:

It has been determined that the order of appeals does matter (thanks to a Wendelstadt school instructor, Jim Evans, and most recently Rich Marazzi). Now since  the order  in which the appeals are made determines if the force is “kept alive”, what does NOT matter is the moment that the preceding runner misses the base originally forced to. In other words, when the defense appeals the trailing runner first, then the preceding runner(both originally forced), the force on the preceding runner is removed, as dictated by the “order of appeals”, REGARDLESS of the fact that the missed base occurred while the runner was still in a force situation. This illustrates that what really matters is that the trailing runner was put out on a FORCE PLAY and NOT whether(or not) the preceding runner was forced at the moment he missed the base originally forced to, and this result is supported by the line in OBR 5.09(b)(6)which says…however, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed…

Also, keep in mind, that for the most part, outs recorded during “regular” action yield the exact same benefits to the defense as appealed outs do, so very little should be made of the difference in the way the outs are recorded.

 

So how are we going to rule on the cheat developed when only 2 umps? Bases loaded, 1 out, good bunt makes only play at 1B, BR out while R3 scores and R2 scores, R2 having purposely cut the corner at 3B. Umps had intel on the cheat so one sees the miss. Defense appeals and R2 is called out. I believe we have a cite in NCAA to call that a force and no run scores. What about OBR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
34 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

 

So how are we going to rule on the cheat developed when only 2 umps? Bases loaded, 1 out, good bunt makes only play at 1B, BR out while R3 scores and R2 scores, R2 having purposely cut the corner at 3B. Umps had intel on the cheat so one sees the miss. Defense appeals and R2 is called out. I believe we have a cite in NCAA to call that a force and no run scores. What about OBR?

Unless we're getting into a line of trying to punish blatant cheating, this should be a time play, if order matters, and always matters.   If we really want to nail the offense in this blatant scenario remove the need for an appeal - call it abandonment, which would occur before B/R is retired, and you could rule it a force at that point.

As I said before, this is my preferred line of interpretation - if we're going to go the opposite way, then my second preference would be that the order of appeals NEVER matters...that is, if you missed the base while forced, you're always forced...and that addresses the exploit you're taking about.   Just get me away from this sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't stuff.

Abandonment debates aside, in a practical sense, in that scenario defense chose to allow R3 to score anyway (for whatever reason), and also chose to ignore the force at third (suicide squeeze?)...in the end they're getting the bonus of catching R2, instead of it being R2/R3 with two out the inning is over.   Eject R2 and the coach while we're at it.

It's an exploit, sure, but the risk/reward is one run vs one out...it shouldn't be two runs vs one out. (and it wouldn't be if, say, for example, it was only R2/R3, not bases loaded)

Likewise, with bases loaded and two out on a ground ball if I'm R1 I'm may try to run full speed through second, even if it lands me in left field, to beat the throw and allow R3 to score.  At that point, I can sacrifice myself, or make my way to third and maybe distract the defense enough to allow R2 to score.  It's an exploit...the risk/reward is I may have beat the throw anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
58 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Just get me away from this sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't stuff.

Abandonment debates aside, in a practical sense, in that scenario defense chose to allow R3 to score anyway (for whatever reason), and also chose to ignore the force at third (suicide squeeze?)...in the end they're getting the bonus of catching R2, instead of it being R2/R3 with two out the inning is over.   Eject R2 and the coach while we're at it.

 

 

I neglected to specify suicide which is when this usually was tried so the defense would have no choice except 1B. But NCAA has the sometimes matters "live action" clause. I would say this is an academic exercise but there was an MLB game ending situation where we might have learned how they rule with multiple misses and forces but luckily a security guard interfered with a live ball and took everyone off the hook for what would have been a goatrope.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The following should have been posted with my previous post from yesterday, but here it is.

Loaded bases one out. A base hit scores  R3,R2. R1 misses 2nd base and slides safely into third, followed by the BR thrown out trying for a double.(now 2out). Now, on appeal, R1 is called out for missing 2nd base (for the third out). In this situation, the moment R1 misses second base DOES matter because the trailing runner(BR) was NOT retired on a “force play”. Hence, R1 was in a force situation when he missed second base, so R1 is the third out and a force out and no runs score. The point is that the type of out (force or non force) recorded on a trailing runner absolutely does matter in determining if a preceding runner is  in a force situation at the moment he misses the base originally forced to. [5.09(b)(6)].

Simply put:

1) When a following runner is retired on a “non-force” out, then the moment the preceding runner misses the base DOES determine if a force situation exists.

2) When  a following runner is retired on a FORCE out, the force is removed on the preceding runner, making  the moment the preceding runner misses the base IRRELEVANT. 
Statement 2 is exactly what occurs when “the order of appeals” is carried out correctly. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
41 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

The following should have been posted with my previous post from yesterday, but here it is.

Loaded bases one out. A base hit scores  R3,R2. R1 misses 2nd base and slides safely into third, followed by the BR thrown out trying for a double.(now 2out). Now, on appeal, R1 is called out for missing 2nd base (for the third out). In this situation, the moment R1 misses second base DOES matter because the trailing runner(BR) was NOT retired on a “force play”. Hence, R1 was in a force situation when he missed second base, so R1 is the third out and a force out and no runs score. The point is that the type of out (force or non force) recorded on a trailing runner absolutely does matter in determining if a preceding runner is  in a force situation at the moment he misses the base originally forced to. [5.09(b)(6)].

Simply put:

1) When a following runner is retired on a “non-force” out, then the moment the preceding runner misses the base DOES determine if a force situation exists.

2) When  a following runner is retired on a FORCE out, the force is removed on the preceding runner, making  the moment the preceding runner misses the base IRRELEVANT. 
Statement 2 is exactly what occurs when “the order of appeals” is carried out correctly. 

:ranton:And frankly, for whatever my little opinion is worth, it's a moronic ruling.

In live action a force is removed no matter when the b/r is put out.  Whether by "force" or not. (or any trailing runner creating the force)   A runner is forced due to a batter becoming a runner...if he is no longer a runner there is no longer a force...always.  The runner may return to their original base if they really wanted to.  If in some weird scenario B/R got out between first and second, and then R1 got in a run down, he could go back to first.  Tagging second doesn't get him out on a force.

To say that matters in live action but not in an appeal is simply silly.  It's inconsistent.

Anything else is some rule maker sitting in a room and outsmarting himself.  

:rantoff:

EDIT: I also see the problem with this thinking - A batter/runner who scores is no longer a runner....I hate life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

 (OBR) Loaded bases 1 out batter hits base clearing hit and gets thrown out at third. (Two out).now the defense appeals that the runner originally on first missed second for the third out. This out is a force out and no run scores . Reason: the Force is not removed just because the batter  runner was retired behind the other runners.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

 (OBR) Loaded bases 1 out batter hits base clearing hit and gets thrown out at third. (Two out).now the defense appeals that the runner originally on first missed second for the third out. This out is a force out and no run scores . Reason: the Force is not removed just because the batter  runner was retired behind the other runners.

 

Oh make no mistake...I'm not disputing the existence of these rulings...only that they're silly and inconsistent.

I challenge you to find a ruling that says this is true during non-appeal force scenarios.  You won't.  This ruling is only applicable in missed base scenarios.  

As I said before...I'm all for a world where the b/r being retired removes any and all forces until the end of time...OR I'm all for a world where a forced runner who misses their base while forced remains forced until the end of time (or until corrected).   It's the in between "sometimes this sometimes that" where I find the rulemakers/interpreters are being silly and overcomplicated, just for the sake of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, TOMUIC said:

(OBR) Loaded bases 1 out batter hits base clearing hit and gets thrown out at third. (Two out).now the defense appeals that the runner originally on first missed second for the third out. This out is a force out and no run scores . Reason: the Force is not removed just because the batter  runner was retired behind the other runners.

 

Where is this verbiage from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
14 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

Just refer to OBR 5.09(b)(6) and you will see the “verbiage” that is part of this entire discussion regarding when runners are and are not in force  situations.The “rules are the rules are the rules” and need to be properly applied.

 

Where? wqn5ah4c3qtivwx3jatm.pdf (mlbstatic.com) - I'm reading the 2023 version of OBR and do not see the language or verbiage you're referencing.   If anything it pretty clearly says that if a following runner is put out the force is removed.   This section doesn't address appeals though...and there's nothing in the OBR rule book appeals section about this specifically.

Once again, taking appeals out of this conversation for a minute - do you believe, or not, that the force on R1 is removed if B/R is retired after passing first base?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
44 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

Just refer to OBR 5.09(b)(6) and you will see the “verbiage” that is part of this entire discussion regarding when runners are and are not in force  situations.

Thanks for clarifying. To be clear, the language you wrote in two posts above(quoted below), isn't in OBR. They are created case plays (by you, I guess? Not that there is anything wrong with that). I've attached 5.09(b)(6) in its entirety.

Not saying the spirit of 5.09(b)(6) isn't represented, nor that they shouldn't be in OBR, but those aren't rules statements. I was confused on their origin so am clarifying for anyone else who was unsure.

9 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

Loaded bases one out. A base hit scores  R3,R2. R1 misses 2nd base and slides safely into third, followed by the BR thrown out trying for a double.(now 2out). Now, on appeal, R1 is called out for missing 2nd base (for the third out). In this situation, the moment R1 misses second base DOES matter because the trailing runner(BR) was NOT retired on a “force play”. Hence, R1 was in a force situation when he missed second base, so R1 is the third out and a force out and no runs score. The point is that the type of out (force or non force) recorded on a trailing runner absolutely does matter in determining if a preceding runner is  in a force situation at the moment he misses the base originally forced to. [5.09(b)(6)].

8 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

(OBR) Loaded bases 1 out batter hits base clearing hit and gets thrown out at third. (Two out).now the defense appeals that the runner originally on first missed second for the third out. This out is a force out and no run scores . Reason: the Force is not removed just because the batter  runner was retired behind the other runners.

image.thumb.png.0b1b3095ce35e3a1b44e450800449fce.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

It has been determined that the order of appeals does matter (thanks to a Wendelstadt school instructor, Jim Evans, and most recently Rich Marazzi). Now since  the order  in which the appeals are made determines if the force is “kept alive”, what does NOT matter is the moment that the preceding runner misses the base originally forced to. In other words, when the defense appeals the trailing runner first, then the preceding runner(both originally forced), the force on the preceding runner is removed, as dictated by the “order of appeals”, REGARDLESS of the fact that the missed base occurred while the runner was still in a force situation. This illustrates that what really matters is that the trailing runner was put out on a FORCE PLAY and NOT whether(or not) the preceding runner was forced at the moment he missed the base originally forced to, and this result is supported by the line in OBR 5.09(b)(6)which says…however, if a following runner is put out on a force play, the force is removed…

Also, keep in mind, that for the most part, outs recorded during “regular” action yield the exact same benefits to the defense as appealed outs do, so very little should be made of the difference in the way the outs are recorded.

When the BR Is retired AFTER passing first base BUT BEFORE R1 reaches (or passes)second base, R1 is no longer forced.

 

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
Answer this question...

×   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...