Force at time of missed base or at time of appeal?

[Velho]

We looked at the order of multiple appeals where forces were in place when playing actions stopped in a separate thread. This thread is for appeals that had a force on at time of the missed base but subsequent playing action removed that force.

[TOMUIC]

Yes, in the example given, the following runner was retired on a “non-force out”, therefore the time that the runner missed second base is what matters and hence he was still in a force situation when he missed second base, so no run scores.

Had the batter-runner been retired before touching first base by natural action or appeal, then the force is removed on any runner preceding him and the moment that the runner missed second base doesn’t mean anything, which has been proven by play #3 in Rich Marazzi article.

Once again, 5.09(b)(6) supports this thinking.

[Velho]

 

46 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

Yes, in the example given, the following runner was retired on a “non-force out”, therefore the time that the runner missed second base is what matters and hence he was still in a force situation when he missed second base, so no run scores.

Had the batter-runner been retired before touching first base by natural action or appeal, then the force is removed on any runner preceding him and the moment that the runner missed second base doesn’t mean anything, which has been proven by play #3 in Rich Marazzi article.

Once again, 5.09(b)(6) supports this thinking.

Thanks @TOMUIC

Slight modification to test my understanding: R3, R1, 1 out. Ball to OF, R3 scores, BR is out at 1B (A) after R1 passes and misses 2B or (B) before R1 passes and misses 2B, R1 touches and remains on 3B. There is a successful appeal of R1 missing 2B for 3rd out.

(A) is exactly the 2nd paragraph in your response, i.e. the appeal at 2B is a time play since previous runner was out on a force play. Correct?

Does (B) change anything? Reason I ask is that with BR out before R1 reaches 2B, R1 is no longer forced (like a reverse-force double play with F3 unassisted putout 1B who then throws to F6 requiring F6 to tag R1).

Appreciate your time talking this through.

 

[TOMUIC]

I am in total agreement with your evaluation of both situations. I’m not sure some others would be convinced. But the rule that I’ve cited (5.09(b)(6) specifically says when a following runner is retired ON A FORCE OUT the force is removed on the preceding runner, which is what occurs when the following runner was an “APPEALED FORCE OUT” in Marazzi’s play#3, making the moment (the preceding runner) missed the base a non factor.

Put another way, if 5.09(b)(6) did not say “ON A FORCE PLAY”, then when a following runner was retired (force or not) would result in any out recorded on a preceding runner always being a non force, hence ALWAYS being a TIME PLAY, which would be ABSURD.

 

[TOMUIC]

Maybe I can simplify all of this with the following two general statements:
 

1) if a following runner is retired on a force play, then the force is removed on any preceding runner, and the moment this preceding runner misses the base originally forced to is meaningless, hence any subsequent appeal on this preceding runner results in a time play.

2) if a following  runner is retired on something other than a force out, then the moment a preceding runner misses the base (originally forced to) does indeed matter, which means a subsequent appeal may or may not result in a force out.

 

[Velho]

On 6/6/2024 at 9:22 AM, Velho said:

Slight modification to test my understanding: R3, R1, 1 out. Ball to OF, R3 scores, BR is out at 1B (A) after R1 passes and misses 2B or (B) before R1 passes and misses 2B, R1 touches and remains on 3B. There is a successful appeal of R1 missing 2B for 3rd out.

 

On 6/6/2024 at 10:05 AM, TOMUIC said:

I am in total agreement with your evaluation of both situations

To ensure I'm completely clear on what you're saying:

A) Appeal is force play

B) Appeal is a time play

Please confirm. Thanks.

[TOMUIC]

Please refer to my post at 2:05 PM on Thursday, which lists two paragraphs 1 and 2. Those two paragraphs answer any question you might have on any situation that you can think of for this topic.

[TOMUIC]

Rich Marazzi’s play #3 makes it very clear that if R1 is appealed out FIRST (at 2nd base) followed by R2 appealed out (at 3rd base), then the FORCE IS REMOVED, resulting in a TIME PLAY, which proves that the moment the base was MISSED IS MEANINGLESS.

Just think about it, the preceding runner missed 3rd base well before the appeal was made on the following runner (at 2nd base) and yet the result was a third out that was not a force.

Hence, a following runner being retired ON A FORCE OUT(during regular action or by appeal as in play#3) means the moment the base was missed means nothing and there is no longer a force in place on any runner, which is the point made in OBR  5.09(b)(6).

Hope this helps.

 

[TOMUIC]

Please respond so I know that you are following what I’m saying

[Velho]

Let me rephrase validate: On an initially forced runner, if any following runner has been out on a force play the appeal is a time play. Otherwise it's a force play.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

Let me rephrase validate: On an initially forced runner, if any following runner has been out on a force play the appeal is a time play. Otherwise it's a force play.

Let's segue. NCAA always had the interp that forced base appeals had to be in the right order even when that conflicted with the now changed OBR/WUM time of miss interp. But what does this mean? 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."

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

"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."

So, order of consecutive appeals aside, that means force at time of miss doesn't change.

[TOMUIC]

13 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Let's segue. NCAA always had the interp that forced base appeals had to be in the right order even when that conflicted with the now changed OBR/WUM time of miss interp. But what does this mean? 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."

When I read the bold print from 8-5-j the following situation comes into mind:

R1.R3 one out. on a bloop hit to right field, R3 scores, R1 goes halfway and the batter runner runs right up behind him. The right fielder throws the ball in and the BR is tagged out.(2 out) after this R1 misses second and is safe at third.

Now when the defense appeals at second base for the third out, we know that the run should count, but the bold print in 8-5-j seems at the very least “contradictory”.

[Jimurray]

16 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

When I read the bold print from 8-5-j the following situation comes into mind:

R1.R3 one out. on a bloop hit to right field, R3 scores, R1 goes halfway and the batter runner runs right up behind him. The right fielder throws the ball in and the BR is tagged out.(2 out) after this R1 misses second and is safe at third.

Now when the defense appeals at second base for the third out, we know that the run should count, but the bold print in 8-5-j seems at the very least “contradictory”.

The bold might make sense if we have R1 miss 2B as the B-R rounds 1B and then is thrown out going back to 1B.

[TOMUIC]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

The bold might make sense if we have R1 miss 2B as the B-R rounds 1B and then is thrown out going back to 1B.

I’m sorry, if I apply the bold print to the following:

R1, R3 one out. On a bloop hit to right, R3 scores, Batter passes R1 between first and second (now 2 out) R1 now misses second and is safe at third. R1 is out on appeal for the 3rd out.

I must conclude that the force remains in place on R1 and hence R3’s run is negated, which makes no sense.

What am I missing here?

[Jimurray]

39 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

I’m sorry, if I apply the bold print to the following:

R1, R3 one out. On a bloop hit to right, R3 scores, Batter passes R1 between first and second (now 2 out) R1 now misses second and is safe at third. R1 is out on appeal for the 3rd out.

I must conclude that the force remains in place on R1 and hence R3’s run is negated, which makes no sense.

What am I missing here?

It's always been a head scratcher to me.

[TOMUIC]

24 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

It's always been a head scratcher to me.

Jim, I just think the NCAA has it wrong and they don’t have anyone there to realize the mistake in their thinking.

[Jimurray]

On 6/11/2024 at 1:13 PM, TOMUIC said:

Jim, I just think the NCAA has it wrong and they don’t have anyone there to realize the mistake in their thinking.

Thinking about it I wonder if they intentionally want that clause for maybe the same reason Wendelstedt School in the past used "time of miss". It allows the offense to play on other runners that might score or advance and even get an out in live action without being forced to appeal the missed base in live action.

[TOMUIC]

Sorry Jim I just saw this now. I guess it’s possible. I just think that their wording at TIMES is very poor. To me OBR still words things the best, even though sometimes they are little vague. Oh well

[TOMUIC]

For those that have found this particular thread interesting or have even joined the discussion, I think it’s safe to say that Rich Marazzi’s “ inning ending and game ending plays #3” illustrates not only that the defense must appeal in the proper order to keep the force alive, but also that the moment a preceding runner misses the base is meaningless if a following runner is retired on a force out.

As mentioned in earlier discussions, in play #3 the preceding runner was certainly in a force situation when he missed the base, and yet when the first appeal takes place behind him at the previous base (at a much later moment in time), his missed base is no longer a force out. With this in mind, let’s look at two situations that align with the same thought process.

R1,R3 one out. R1 is running on the pitch as the batter lines a single to right field. R1 has rounded second (and missed it) PRIOR to the right fielder throwing the ball to the first baseman who yells to the umpire that the BR ( who is attempting to get back to first)  missed first as he rounded the bag. The umpire declares the BR out on this continuous action appeal.(of course R3 has long crossed the plate while this action is taking place). Now on a standard appeal from the pitching position, R1 is declared out for failure to touch second base. This play is no different than Rich Marazzi‘s #3, except that the first of the two “inning ending appeals” was  during continuous action. However, no matter how you slice it, the force was removed on R1 when the BR was retired before legally touching first base.(treated like a force out), again illustrating that the moment the base was missed means nothing if the following runner is retired on a force out.

Here is the second situation:

R1,R3 and 1 out. R1 is running on the pitch and the batter hits a slow ground ball to second base. R1 has rounded (and missed) second before the BR is retired easily at first base. Once again, R3 has scored during this action. The defense now appeals that R1 missed second on his way to arriving safely at third. R1 is declared out for the third out of the inning. Once again, just like in Marazzi‘s play #3 and the first situation cited here, a following runner was retired on a “force out” which removes the force on a preceding runner and renders “meaningless” the moment the base was actually missed.

The key here is to realize that outs recorded during natural action or by appeal, have the same impact when it comes to whether or not additional outs on that play are “force outs” or not.

Lastly, if a following runner is retired on something OTHER than a force out, then indeed the moment a preceding runner misses a base determines whether the appealed out on that runner is a force out or not, which can be INFERRED by the language found in:

               OBR 5.09(b)(6).

 

 

[beerguy55]

36 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

Lastly, if a following runner is retired on something OTHER than a force out, then indeed the moment a preceding runner misses a base determines whether the appealed out on that runner is a force out or not, which can be INFERRED by the language found in:

               OBR 5.09(b)(6).

This makes zero sense.

I understand 5.09(b)(6) has the language about a following runner put out "on a force play" but I'm more inclined to think it's a mistake, or a conversational assumption, than a standard to apply.

R1/R2...batter hits a bloop to the outfield that somehow confuses R2, who thinks it's caught...R2 never reaches third base, and R1 rounds second only to realize that R2 has stopped.   R1 gets thrown out trying to get back to second base.   

By logical extension, your inference from 5.09(b)(6) is that R2 is still forced to advance to third, and can be put out by tagging third base.  If you're inferring it for the order of appeals, you must infer it for this scenario too.

Common sense would dictate that he would need to be tagged, and he could, if luck would have it, return to second base.

A following runner has been put out - preceding runners are no longer forced.  It should not matter the timing of when the based was missed.  The runner is either forced or they are not.  We either take the letter of this rule, or the common sense/spirit of the rule when a following runner is put out.

Not to mention for the purists here and everywhere else - the batter/runner can never be put out on a force play.

[TOMUIC]

In your example R2 is not forced any longer because at the time the following runner was retired on a non-force out he had not reached the base he was forced to, that’s the whole point

[RBIbaseball]

On 6/17/2024 at 7:26 PM, TOMUIC said:

In your example R2 is not forced any longer because at the time the following runner was retired on a non-force out he had not reached the base he was forced to, that’s the whole point

If I may, I think you missed @beerguy55 point.

If the following runner being tagged out after legally reaching his forced base KEEPS a missed base appeal of the preceding runner AS A FORCE (not a time play)...

then in the live action example he posted, R2 would still be FORCED to advance ... if after R1 was tagged out on the backpick into 2B, R2 was caught in the rundown, then the defense could just tag 3B for a force out? is this true? Because I would imagine he's no longer forced to advance since R1 is out... If it's not true, then why would it be treated as a force out if it was on appeal?

[beerguy55]

On 6/17/2024 at 5:26 PM, TOMUIC said:

In your example R2 is not forced any longer because at the time the following runner was retired on a non-force out he had not reached the base he was forced to, that’s the whole point

Doesn't matter.  You've made an inference to apply a force play rule to an appeal, but are ignoring the same inference in a non-appeal scenario. 

The runner is either forced or they are not, and their force is either removed (by a following runner being put out) or it is not - when/how the following runner is put out, or his status at such time, is irrelevant.

And if you think it is relevant, because of that odd language in 5.09(b)(6) then it is ALWAYS relevant.

 

Let's get really silly - R2 passes but misses third...then R1 gets put out sliding back to second..., with R2 between third and home, is the force still on at third base?  And let's say there's R3 who's already scored and R2 is going to be the third out if they complete the appeal in time.

[TOMUIC]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Doesn't matter.  You've made an inference to apply a force play rule to an appeal, but are ignoring the same inference in a non-appeal scenario. 

The runner is either forced or they are not, and their force is either removed (by a following runner being put out) or it is not - when/how the following runner is put out, or his status at such time, is irrelevant.

And if you think it is relevant, because of that odd language in 5.09(b)(6) then it is ALWAYS relevant.

 

Let's get really silly - R2 passes but misses third...then R1 gets put out sliding back to second..., with R2 between third and home, is the force still on at third base?  And let's say there's R3 who's already scored and R2 is going to be the third out if they complete the appeal in time.

In the play you described if R2 is appealed out for the third out no run scores because he was in a force situation at the time he missed third base because the runner behind him was not retired on a force out.

it is not true that anytime a following runner is retired, then the force is removed on preceding runners.

loaded bases, one out a base clearing hit scores all three runners. The batter runner is retired sliding into third base for the second out. Now the defense appeals that the runner originally on first missed second for the third out. In this example, no runs score. Even though a following runner, (the batter runner) was retired, the force is still in effect when they appeal the runner from first missing second. It has always been that way. 

However, when the following runner is retired on a force out, the force is removed on preceding runners. This is clearly illustrated in Rich Marazzi’s play number three, along with two examples I offered earlier in this thread, which align with Marazzi play number three