Jump to content

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


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

10 members have voted

  1. 1. R3, R1, 1 out. Ball to OF, R3 scores, R1 misses 2B and ends on 3B, BR touches 1B and is tagged out between 1B and 2B for 2nd out. There is a successful appeal of R1 missing 2B for 3rd out. Does the run score?

    • No. R1 was forced at the time of miss. The appeal out is a force (no run scores).
      4
    • Yes. The appeal is a time play since BR was tagged out after touching 1B (even though it happened after R1 missed 2B.
      6


Recommended Posts

Posted
On 6/21/2024 at 5:04 PM, TOMUIC said:

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

 

Once again, the second paragraph above is the one that aligns with what Wendelstadt says in his manual. Everything else written above is found beyond his manual (i.e. Evans interpretation and the Marazzi #3) These two concepts are not really contradictory to each other.

Posted

The statement from the Wendelstadt manual applies to a plays like the following :
loaded bases one out, on a base clearing hit the runners from second and third score, the runner from first misses second before scoring. The batter runner is thrown out attempting a triple. (Now two out), The defense now appeals and the runner from first is called out for missing second base. At the time he missed the base he was in a force situation. No runs score. The batter Runner being thrown out behind the other runners does not remove the force. 

However, the Wendelstadt manual does not address situations where the following runner is retired on a force out (whether by natural action or appeal). Let it be noted that the last time the Wendelstadt manual seems to be printed was 2015. There are several items in it that are not accurate or contradict each other, and I don’t know how he uses the manual in his school if it’s not totally up-to-date. I am not the first person to make a comment regarding this.

Wendelstadt does not address the most recent interpretation of order of appeals, which has been confirmed by an instructor in his school, Jim Evans, and the Marazzi play#3.

All of these discussions have taken place on this site over the last year or two.

If retiring a following runner (who was forced) BEFORE retiring the preceding runner (at his “forced” base), DOES NOT REMOVE THE FORCE on the preceding  runner, then the “order of appeals” means nothing and the three references cited above are incorrect. I’ll take my chances with the three above before Wendelstadt.

23 hours ago, beerguy55 said:
Posted
2 hours ago, TOMUIC said:

If retiring a following runner (who was forced) BEFORE retiring the preceding runner (at his “forced” base), DOES NOT REMOVE THE FORCE on the preceding  runner, then the “order of appeals” means nothing and the three references cited above are incorrect. I’ll take my chances with the three above before Wendelstadt.

Once again, you are viewing one position and somehow concluding that it excludes the other.  There is no evidence that have you presented from anyway - Evans, Marazzi, Wendelstadt, God - that suggests your inference is correct or official.

The issue isn't whether or not order of appeals removes the force on following runners...it's whether or not it ONLY does so when the following runner is forced.

Marazzi and Wendelstadt have conflicting positions...I really don't care which one is right, and if I'm going with the one that makes the most sense it's Marazzi's.  But what I'm not going to do is pick and choose where Marazzi's applies and doesn't apply.  RM does not specifically say his scenario only applies when the following runner is forced.  It simply seems to be the example he has chosen.   Is the example you give for HW's notes your own, or does that exact example appear in the manual?

And until I see evidence that HW, JE or RW have specifically  and explicitly addressed the idea of when a following runner being put out does and does not remove a force, I'm not buying your interpretation, as it is yours and yours alone, and you've proven on more than a few occasions that you will misinterpret what you've exactly been told, even quoting emails you've been sent that you then misunderstood.

You are presenting your own interpretation and trying to sell it as coming from an official source.  You like to tell us what they're saying, but very little of what you're presenting are direct quotes from those people - they are your summaries and beliefs of what you think they meant.

Posted

WUM say "time of miss" for determining the appeal is a force or not.*

Marazzi says that in a multiple appeal situation, earlier appeals can remove the force from latter appeals in a very specific use case.**

My reconciliation is that Marazzi is a specific use case. Given that specific situation, there is some logic in saying the appeals affect each other and it doesn't violate spirit of WUM.***

Personally, I feel better now. I'll go with state of force at time of miss unless it's precise Marrazi situation.

 

* I hadn't seen this in writing so thank you for that. IMO, this is highly logical since it opens the doors to chicanery otherwise.

** The situation is R2 and R3 never reaching the next base. Not that they missed. And the appeals are done in a live ball situation. There is an extrapolation happening to acquired but missed bases and game play outs happening between the miss and the appeal (neither of which are in his use case). I'm not sure you can even extrapolate his scenario to a scenario where an in between runner never acquires the next base (No outs, R3 never acquires HP, R2 touches R3 and HP for fun, R1 never acquires 2B, BR touches 1B). https://baseballrulesacademy.com/2023-game-and-inning-ending-plays/

*** I don't know Marazzi but, since he didn't say he was deviating from WUM/precedent, this feels like he thought of a corner case where it didn't apply and wanted to put his name on it. "The Marazzi Force Order Paradox"

Posted
5 hours ago, Velho said:

The situation is R2 and R3 never reaching the next base. Not that they missed

Not exactly.   The scenario talks about the players "missing" or "never having arrived" to their forced bases, but the section is meant to address both game ending AND inning ending scenarios  (and R1/R2 wouldn't walk off the field to celebrate the end of the inning - unless you really want to get into inning-based run limits) - the section concludes with a very definitive statement that appeals on game-ending AND inning-ending force situations must be done in the proper order, in order to keep the force alive.

Again, it's just an example scenario (in fact, the section starts with "Let's say") - it is meant to be illustrative, not exclusive.  I'm speculating this example is used simply to build on the example in scenario 2.  But all other language in the section makes it pretty clear that it would also apply if R2/R3 simply missed their forced bases, which would be a more likely and relevant scenario for an inning-ending situation.  I would also posit that the scenario presented is more likely than TWO players simply missing their forced base at the same time.

The section very clearly says that if the following runner is put out first, the force on the preceding runner is negated (directly contradicting WUM)...what it does NOT say is that it is conditional on the following runner being forced when they are put out.

 

The bottom line is one of these two positions is wrong.

 

Posted
22 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:
5 hours ago, Velho said:

The situation is R2 and R3 never reaching the next base. Not that they missed

Not exactly.   The scenario talks about the players "missing" or "never having arrived" to their forced bases, but the section is meant to address both game ending AND inning ending scenarios  (and R1/R2 wouldn't walk off the field to celebrate the end of the inning) - the section concludes with a very definitive statement that appeals on game-ending AND inning-ending force situations must be done in the proper order, in order to keep the force alive.

Again, it's just an example scenario (in fact, the section starts with "Let's say") - it is meant to be illustrative, not exclusive.  I'm speculating this example is used simply to build on the example in scenario 2.  But all other language in the section makes it pretty clear that it would also apply if R2/R3 simply missed their forced bases, which would be a more likely and relevant scenario for an inning-ending situation.

The section very clearly says that if the following runner is put out first, the force on the preceding runner is negated (directly contradicting WUM)...what it does NOT say is that it is conditional on the following runner being forced when they are put out.

Let's just say that it could be written much clearer* since I think you are inferring, logically but still inferring, from the article.

Regardless, my point was that I see multiple appeals following live action as a corner case and exception to the universal WUM "time of miss".

Further, extrapolating that into it live action removing the force at time-of-miss depending off the force-state of the runner is too much - way too much.

In my opinion, other than the second runner in successive appeals of consecutive runners, it's time of miss**

 

* Article closes with: "Also, defensively when appealing multiple runners on bounding balls, it is important to appeal in the proper order to keep the force alive." What does that mean? A non-gaming end walk doesn't require appeals in proper order?

Also, the words "miss" or "missing" never appear on that entire web page. No examples are base acquired but missed. They are all ones the runner never got close to the next base and, other than Scenario 3, outs were base tags not appeals.

** Since first runner, even under Marazzi, is time of miss.

Posted
14 hours ago, Velho said:

What does that mean? A non-gaming end walk doesn't require appeals in proper order?

If it doesn't end an inning or game it doesn't matter, for the purposes of "does the run score?"  And in OBR, on a game-ending walk only BR and R3 have to touch, so order doesn't matter.

I would love to see a bases loaded walk in the third inning where R1 and R2 refuse to advance...and would further love to see what happens if R1 is called out first.  Is this even an appeal play, or is this an umpire instruction play?  

14 hours ago, Velho said:

In my opinion, other than the second runner in successive appeals of consecutive runners, it's time of miss**

 

14 hours ago, Velho said:

Regardless, my point was that I see multiple appeals following live action as a corner case and exception to the universal WUM "time of miss".

So, give me your answers for these scenarios - in all cases R1 is forced at time of miss.  In all cases R1 will be the third out, so it will matter to whether or not R3's run counts.  (ie. if the force is removed, the run counts as R3 scored before third out)

Is the force removed in all four scenarios?  If not, which ones?  I'm also considering continuous action, and live activity after the play is finished - after all runners have stopped trying to advance - to be the same (ie. the ball was never made dead).  If they are different for the purposes of these rulings, let me know.

1. B/R and R1 both miss their forced bases - after live action, B/R is appealed, then R1.   Yes

2. B/R and R1 both miss their forced bases - during live action B/R is appealed, then R1.  

3. B/R and R1 both miss their forced bases - during live action B/R is appealed, R1 is appealed after live action.

4. Hit and run, R1 rounds and misses second & B/R is thrown out before reaching first; R1 advances to third on the throw.   R1 then appealed.

Does it matter whether any or all of the appeals are made during continuous action, during live action after the play, during a dead ball (FED), or after play is live again?  It may be a corner play for consecutive appeals, but not sure about the "following live action" part, but would like to know your insight.

Now, what are your answers with these slight changes - order of outs/appeals the same, R1 still misses second:

1.  BR misses second base, not first

2. BR misses second base, not first

3. BR misses second base, not first

4. BR touches and rounds first, and is subsequently thrown out

 

Because right now, unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'm now seeing three assertions here about when the force is removed:

You - WUM is correct, except for consecutive appeals, which must be done in proper order? 

TomUIC - WUM is correct, except when following runner is put out while forced, whether "naturally" or by appeal (yes to first four, no to second four)?

Me - WUM is incorrect, following runner being put out always removes force (yes to all eight) - my caveat here is, if WUM is correct, then it's 'no' to all eight....ie. either "time of miss" always dictates the force or "following runner out first" does

Posted

Long post incoming...

 

49 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

1. B/R and R1 both miss their forced bases - after live action, B/R is appealed, then R1.   Yes

Time play. Run scores.

50 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

2. B/R and R1 both miss their forced bases - during live action B/R is appealed, then R1.  

Time play. Run scores. (even though appeals concluded the live playing actioning)

50 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

3. B/R and R1 both miss their forced bases - during live action B/R is appealed, R1 is appealed after live action.

Was there an intervening play? If no, then same as #2 - Time play. Run scores. If yes (such as play made on R3 going home), then R1 appeal is Force. (this is where the duality gets jittery).

54 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

4. Hit and run, R1 rounds and misses second & B/R is thrown out before reaching first; R1 advances to third on the throw.   R1 then appealed.

Assuming that means R1 rounded and missed 2B before B/R was out - Force out. No run scores.

57 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

It may be a corner play for consecutive appeals, but not sure about the "following live action" part, but would like to know your insight.

Point made by you with above. "following live action" statement withdrawn.

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

1.  BR misses second base, not first

2. BR misses second base, not first

3. BR misses second base, not first

Holding to my hypothesis, R2 appeal would be time of miss. So B/R appealed first followed by R1 appeal would be 3rd out force, no runs scores. (that feels very janky but I think it is weird under any of the "rulesets" on the table)

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

4. BR touches and rounds first, and is subsequently thrown out

R2 appeal is time of miss. Force for 3rd out. No run scores.

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

You - WUM is correct, except for consecutive appeals, which must be done in proper order? 

Let me clarify and restate: Consecutive appeals on successive runners both forced at time of miss*

In my mind, it's analogous to a live action play with a thrown ball. Reverse double play, the second out is a time play. I think that's Marazzi's overall view too.

* I had this addendum in my original but left it out trying to be more digestible

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Me - WUM is incorrect, following runner being put out always removes force (yes to all eight) - my caveat here is, if WUM is correct, then it's 'no' to all eight....ie. either "time of miss" always dictates the force or "following runner out first" does

Agreed that the rule should simply be "time of miss" or "time of appeal".

I think "time of appeal" introduces chance for chicanery (missing 2B on purpose to beat a 6-4-3 double play for example). That's why "time of miss" feels appropriate to me.

As stated, Scenario 2 plays 1-3 (which mix forced and unforced misses) required proper order of appeals no matter the rule.

Two conclusions:

1. Given all that, I may push Marazzi further into the corner of only being when runners abandon*. That's what the defense is really appealing (even though rules says umps have to call Abandonment when it happens). (note use of "a" vs "A")

* Going back to our disagreement on the scope of his statements being missed bases vs abandoned bases.

2. King of the rulebook for a day: ALL appeals are forced. Offense screwed up. Don't give them the benefit of technicalities.

Yes, even the single appeal scenario, such as BR misses 1B vs missing 2B on a HR. Should that be a difference? Why do you get to score runs for missing 2B? You run over someone with your car on your way to work vs your way home, you still ran someone over. The penalty is no different.

 

@beerguy55 Thanks for the engagement. That was interesting and fun.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 6/27/2024 at 12:10 PM, Velho said:

Long post incoming...

 

Time play. Run scores.

Time play. Run scores. (even though appeals concluded the live playing actioning)

Was there an intervening play? If no, then same as #2 - Time play. Run scores. If yes (such as play made on R3 going home), then R1 appeal is Force. (this is where the duality gets jittery).

Assuming that means R1 rounded and missed 2B before B/R was out - Force out. No run scores.

Point made by you with above. "following live action" statement withdrawn.

Holding to my hypothesis, R2 appeal would be time of miss. So B/R appealed first followed by R1 appeal would be 3rd out force, no runs scores. (that feels very janky but I think it is weird under any of the "rulesets" on the table)

R2 appeal is time of miss. Force for 3rd out. No run scores.

Let me clarify and restate: Consecutive appeals on successive runners both forced at time of miss*

In my mind, it's analogous to a live action play with a thrown ball. Reverse double play, the second out is a time play. I think that's Marazzi's overall view too.

* I had this addendum in my original but left it out trying to be more digestible

Agreed that the rule should simply be "time of miss" or "time of appeal".

I think "time of appeal" introduces chance for chicanery (missing 2B on purpose to beat a 6-4-3 double play for example). That's why "time of miss" feels appropriate to me.

As stated, Scenario 2 plays 1-3 (which mix forced and unforced misses) required proper order of appeals no matter the rule.

Two conclusions:

1. Given all that, I may push Marazzi further into the corner of only being when runners abandon*. That's what the defense is really appealing (even though rules says umps have to call Abandonment when it happens). (note use of "a" vs "A")

* Going back to our disagreement on the scope of his statements being missed bases vs abandoned bases.

2. King of the rulebook for a day: ALL appeals are forced. Offense screwed up. Don't give them the benefit of technicalities.

Yes, even the single appeal scenario, such as BR misses 1B vs missing 2B on a HR. Should that be a difference? Why do you get to score runs for missing 2B? You run over someone with your car on your way to work vs your way home, you still ran someone over. The penalty is no different.

 

@beerguy55 Thanks for the engagement. That was interesting and fun.

 

OBR 5.08 has a general statement that  says “….the runner is out when the umpire sustains the appeal…”

maybe this helps in your quest to determine if it should be “time of miss or time of appeal”?

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...