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

[RBIbaseball]

3 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

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 

So applying your appeal play (does run score) interpretation to general force-out scenario:

R1, R2 .  Line drive to center field short hops into the glove of F8 (hard to tell if he caught it). Umpire signals no catch. B/R reaches 1B safely. R2 froze 3/4 of the way to 3B because base coach thought it was caught and told him to go back. R1 continued around 2B seeing the no catch think R2 was going to score. R1 sees R2 not even to 3B and turns back for 2B only to get back-picked for an out. R2 was now half way back to 2B and proceeds to get caught in a rundown. R2 beats the rundown by sliding back into 2B.

TL:DR I made it detailed to make it plausible, but R1 out (after touching 2B), R2 never touches 3B and gets back to 2B safely. 

So just to be clear, with your interpretation/understanding throughout this thread, we are saying the defense can appeal R2 not touching 3B and he's out?  But if R1 was thrown out by the centerfielder prior to touching 2B, then R2 could return to 2B and not be called out at 3B on appeal?

[TOMUIC]

In your play  R2 can certainly return to second base because he was no longer forced when  R1 was tagged out, your play has nothing to do with an appeal. No bases were missed, etc..??

[beerguy55]

15 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

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 

I'm not disputing this.

I'm disputing the notion that this ONLY applies when the following runner is put out on a force, which I'm not seeing any support for - no case play, etc.   Not to mention the underlying problem that a B/R cannot be put out on a "force play", by rule and definition.  ie. the B/R is forced/required/mandated to advance to first, but it is not a "force play"

 

Where is the supporting case play that suggests, supports or mandates your interpretation that limits the scope of when a force is removed?

You have limited the scope to specifically during a missed base, and specifically to when the following runner is retired.  Where is the supporting evidence for that?

You've used 5.09(b)(6) as your reference for your inference, but that rule doesn't mention appeals...it's under the "a runner is out when" section.

 

Otherwise, I repeat, if B/R is put out after rounding first, and R1 has not yet reached second base, then by your logic R1 is still forced to advance to second base.  We KNOW that is wrong.

 

[beerguy55]

15 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

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 

Here's the logical progression of what you are saying....

Bases loaded 1 out HR, R2 misses third, B/R misses first.

• Appeal R2 then BR - no runs score - makes sense
• Appeal BR then R2 - run scores - makes sense.

Now, instead of missing first B/R misses second.

• Appeal R2 then BR - run scores - makes sense
• Appeal BR then R2 - no run scores????  Makes zero sense.

[TOMUIC]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Here's the logical progression of what you are saying....

Bases loaded 1 out HR, R2 misses third, B/R misses first.

• Appeal R2 then BR - no runs score - makes sense
• Appeal BR then R2 - run scores - makes sense.

Now, instead of missing first B/R misses second.

• Appeal R2 then BR - run scores - makes sense
• Appeal BR then R2 - no run scores????  Makes zero sense.

In your very last example, one run scores (makes perfect sense). R3 scores. I don’t know what makes sense to you anymore.

[beerguy55]

Just now, TOMUIC said:

In your very last example, one run scores (makes perfect sense). R3 scores. I don’t know what makes sense to you anymore.

Not according to your previous statements.  R2 was forced when he missed third.  Putting BR out at second (ie. not forced) would, according to you, NOT remove R2's force.   R2 would then make the third out while forced, negating R3's run.  According to everything you've said up to this point.

[TOMUIC]

In your last play BR at 2nd is not a force  so no-run scores because R2 is out on a force because he was in a force situation when he missed 3rd base 

[beerguy55]

33 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

In your last play BR at 2nd is not a force  so no-run scores because R2 is out on a force because he was in a force situation when he missed 3rd base 

And that makes zero sense.  It's absurd.

[TOMUIC]

33 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

And that makes zero sense.  It's absurd.

Ok whatever you say, you know best goodbye

[RBIbaseball]

8 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

In your play  R2 can certainly return to second base because he was no longer forced when  R1 was tagged out, your play has nothing to do with an appeal. No bases were missed, etc..??

Okay so I guess that's my point.

In my example, you agree that 

A. R1 tagged out after reaching 2B - Force removed
B. R1 tagged out before reaching 2B - Force removed

Let's say there was an R3 that scored, and if instead R2 continued to home and missed 3B, then your examples say

A. R1 tagged out after reaching 2B - Force not removed - Run does not count
B. R1 tagged out before reaching 2B - Force removed - Time play - Run may count

-----

Why is there a different standard for the force being removed. It just seems odd to take the rule expert and interpret it to be definitely stating that the way forces are removed are different if on appeal, rather than just one of the ways a force is removed to illustrate the point.

Even if I'm wrong, hopefully you at least understand my argument now.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, TOMUIC said:

Ok whatever you say, you know best goodbye

I wouldn't say I know best...I am, however, comfortable in saying that you know least.

You continuously claim to have an authority with little evidence to back it up, making contrary and arbitrary claims, that often conflict with your own prior statements, and offer little corroboration that exists outside your imagination.

And then you get disturbed when people don't blindly accept your statements as gospel and offer any kind of challenge...often met with "the evidence is out there, go find it yourself." 

And never have the maturity or security to admit when you've erred...you'd rather pretend you never said what you said instead.

Unlike virtually anyone else here I feel I must apply an entire mine of salt to anything you say.

You're the Joel Osteen of umpires.

[TOMUIC]

You wete lost the first time you read something that didn’t fit in with your coaching mentality

[Velho]

Well, that didn't go as I had hoped...

[TOMUIC]

When a following runner is retired (in any manner) prior to the preceding runner reaching (missing) the base he was originally forced to, the force is always removed on that runner.(meaning any appeal on the preceding runner would result in a time play when it results in the 3rd out)

When a preceding runner misses the base he is forced to before a following runner is retired, any appeal on that preceding runner will result in a force out.

AN EXCEPTION to the second paragraph above is the following:

if a following runner is retired on a force out (whether it be before or after the preceding runner misses the base originally forced to) an appeal on that preceding runner is NOT A FORCE OUT, as is clearly illustrated in Rich Marazzi’s “inning ending and game ending plays #3”. Play #3 makes it crystal clear that appealing the following runner first, and then the preceding runner, causes the defense to “lose” the force and hence a run may legally score due to a resulting TIME PLAY.

Once again, in play #3, the preceding runner missed the base he was forced to WAY BEFORE the runner behind him was retired on a force out, yet,  as a result of appealing the following runner first , the force was removed on the preceding runner.

So unless one  does not accept Marazzi’s play #3, it must be concluded that the moment a preceding runner misses the base he was forced to is NOT a factor when a following runner is retired on a force out.

NOTE: For purposes of discussion, the BR  being retired at first base is “treated like a force out” (as mentioned earlier in this thread) even though it is not by definition a force out.

NOTE: Inherent throughout the rulebook regarding when runners are retired is the understanding that appealed outs on runners many times yield the same results as natural action outs.

For example: When the rulebook says no runs can score if the third out of an inning is recorded on the batter- runner before touching first base, it is understood that that means on a normal out recorded during continuous action (at first base), or on a subsequent appeal for the batter -runner missing first base. Both types of outs will negate any run scoring if it is, indeed, the third out of the inning.

Hope this clarifies this discussion for those that are interested

 

[TOMUIC]

I would like to correct an incorrect statement I made while all of this back-and-forth discussion took place several days ago.
 

loaded bases,one out. Base hit, BR out on appeal for missing 2nd, then R2 out on appeal for missing 3rd, in this example, no run scores because by the time the appealed out took place at second, (not a force out) R2 obviously had already missed 3rd base (while still forced), so the third out on R2 is a force out, hence R3’s run does not count.

This should clear up any confusion I caused by my response during the heated back-and-forth that took place. This ruling is now consistent with everything. I’ve set up to this point. Thank you.

[beerguy55]

On 6/21/2024 at 3:04 PM, TOMUIC said:

So unless one  does not accept Marazzi’s play #3, it must be concluded that the moment a preceding runner misses the base he was forced to is NOT a factor when a following runner is retired on a force out.

Nobody is disputing this, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.  It's pretty clear that appealing R1 for his missed base at second will remove the force for R2's missed base at third.  Again, nobody is arguing this, so there's no need to keep bringing it up.

What you have been unable to illustrate or support with any other case play, by Marazzi or anyone else, is how you have determined that this is limited to the following runner being out on a force only, whether by appeal or not.

Marazzi case three does not in any way address that position.

 

 

 

[TOMUIC]

9 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Nobody is disputing this, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.  It's pretty clear that appealing R1 for his missed base at second will remove the force for R2's missed base at third.  Again, nobody is arguing this, so there's no need to keep bringing it up.

What you have been unable to illustrate or support with any other case play, by Marazzi or anyone else, is how you have determined that this is limited to the following runner being out on a force only, whether by appeal or not.

Marazzi case three does not in any way address that position.

 

 

 

I am honestly not trying to be coy here, but I am not certain what you mean or what you’re referring to. Maybe you can give an example?

[beerguy55]

13 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

I am honestly not trying to be coy here, but I am not certain what you mean or what you’re referring to. Maybe you can give an example?

Let's make it simple for illustrative purposes - R1.  For the purposes of this discussion we'll call B/R at first a "force".

To summarize your position...correct me if I'm wrong.

The force is removed when:

R1 not yet at second, BR gets out while forced

R1 not yet at second, BR gets out while not forced

R1 misses second, BR gets out while forced 

The force is not removed when:

R1 misses second, BR gets out while not forced 

 

Why the selective use case of not removing the force in that one situation?  What rule, case play, interpretation, MLBUM entry, umpire manifesto supports this position?    

And yes, my position is that R1 misses second and BR gets thrown out trying to stretch a double into a triple, R1 is no longer forced....because BR was put out first.  I have still not found or seen anything to suggest anything other than the simple statement that the force is removed when a following runner is put out.   If you have that information in the form or a link, or a copy/paste from something, I'd be much obliged.

[TOMUIC]

39 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Let's make it simple for illustrative purposes - R1.  For the purposes of this discussion we'll call B/R at first a "force".

To summarize your position...correct me if I'm wrong.

The force is removed when:

R1 not yet at second, BR gets out while forced

R1 not yet at second, BR gets out while not forced

R1 misses second, BR gets out while forced 

The force is not removed when:

R1 misses second, BR gets out while not forced 

 

Why the selective use case of not removing the force in that one situation?  What rule, case play, interpretation, MLBUM entry, umpire manifesto supports this position?    

And yes, my position is that R1 misses second and BR gets thrown out trying to stretch a double into a triple, R1 is no longer forced....because BR was put out first.  I have still not found or seen anything to suggest anything other than the simple statement that the force is removed when a following runner is put out.   If you have that information in the form or a link, or a copy/paste from something, I'd be much obliged.

 

[TOMUIC]

This picture (sorry I’m not a good cut and paste guy) is from the 2015 Wendelstadt rules Manual page 143. 

[Jimurray]

22 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

This picture (sorry I’m not a good cut and paste guy) is from the 2015 Wendelstadt rules Manual page 143. 

Im confused. In a past thread you convinced us that that interp had changed and the order of forced base appeals mattered. We argued that this WUM interp allowed any order of appeal and you said Jim Evan’s and the umpire school said this had changed. 

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, TOMUIC said:

This picture (sorry I’m not a good cut and paste guy) is from the 2015 Wendelstadt rules Manual page 143. 

And this is direct conflict with what you're presenting with the Marazzi article.

Where in Harry's Hints (or anywhere else) does it specifically say that it only applies when the following runner is not forced when put out?  Your picture specifically says it doesn't matter if the following runner was put out at all....let alone whether or not he has to be forced.

 

[TOMUIC]

3 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Im confused. In a past thread you convinced us that that interp had changed and the order of forced base appeals mattered. We argued that this WUM interp allowed any order of appeal and you said Jim Evan’s and the umpire school said this had changed. 

Nothing has changed Wendelstadt ruling is fine for when the following runner is not put out on a force out because time of missed base then matters. However. the order of appeals makes it clear that the force is lost if the following runner is put out on a force out. 

[Jimurray]

15 minutes ago, TOMUIC said:

 

If you accept the WUM ruling I don't see how you can pick and choose to apply it. What makes clear the order of appeals matter? All we have is Evan's acknowledgement of a change and the umpire school guy confirming it.

[beerguy55]

20 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

Nothing has changed Wendelstadt ruling is fine for when the following runner is not put out on a force out because time of missed base then matters. However. the order of appeals makes it clear that the force is lost if the following runner is put out on a force out. 

That is really the inference you're taking from all of this?  Neither statement (RM or HW) specifically says anything about the forced/non-forced status of the following runner.  One is a general statement about the status of the preceding runner at the time they missed the base - regardless of the timing/manner/method of the out of the following runner.   The other is a statement using an example scenario that is likely to occur to illustrate a point - with no specific statement that this is only true if the following runner is forced...in fact, there's no emphasis on that point at all.

And the Marazzi statement completely conflicts with the Wendelstadt statement, unless you draw this really odd inference to reconcile the difference.   You are mind-reading...at best...or worst, to arbitrarily narrow the scope of when order of appeals matters when it comes to removing forces.  You're making an assumption to why Marazzi chose that specific scenario to illustrate his point...and though Marazzi's point was specifically about the order or appeals, you have concluded that it was about the status of the following runner.

Rather than trying to read between the lines to reconcile the two statements to both be true, the more reasonable conclusion is that one overrules the other - or without an official arbiter position of authority, it is simply differing opinions, and we don't have corroboration to which one is "correct".  That is - Marazzi is simply saying that Wendelstadt is wrong, and that the following runner being put out first does matter...always.

 

In short, if that's all you got, there's no there there.