Dropped 3rd

[Crabby_Bob]

[...] Forced runners can always retreat back to the base they started on, while a batter-runner cannot.

Err, sure she can, but she can never be safe doing this. If BR does this to avoid a tag attempt, BR is out.
A forced runner can possibly become safe by retreating and is not out retreating to avoid a tag attempt. Clear distinction (again!) between a Runner and the Batter-Runner.

[MTR]

[...] Forced runners can always retreat back to the base they started on, while a batter-runner cannot.

Err, sure she can, but she can never be safe doing this. If BR does this to avoid a tag attempt, BR is out.
A forced runner can possibly become safe by retreating and is not out retreating to avoid a tag attempt. Clear distinction (again!) between a Runner and the Batter-Runner.

But a force can be removed for a runner if a trailing runner or BR is retired and be safe by returning to the base from which s/he was originally forced. A BR never has such an option.

[Bretman]

Err, sure she can...

Yeah...I obviously meant retreat back to and reoccupy a previous base...or maybe not so obviously.

[Crabby_Bob]

Agreed to both. My point was poorly stated.

[Battle]

The section you're refering to is the ASA umpire manual that appears in the back of the "Umpire Edition" of their rule book. It was totally rewritten three years ago- all completely new text and graphics since 2009.

I think this was best summed up by Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott in the Star Trek novel "Spock Must Die". Faced with distinguishing a tachyon-based duplicate from that of the real Commander Spock, Scotty surmised that, "A difference which makes no difference is no difference".

Or, in this case...it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck but, technically...it ain't a duck!

Isn't it odd that up to 3 years ago, the book described a “Force Play” and used at least 2 pages of the Umpire's section (of all places) to do this. It's no wonder why people are so misguided on this. You've got the rule book giving you a direct definition and then the umpire's section, under the freakin' words “Force Play”, describing in detail the force at 1st. Unbelievable...Thanks to all of you for educating me and have a Merry Christmas and a safe New Year.

[MTR]

Isn't it odd that up to 3 years ago, the book described a “Force Play” and used at least 2 pages of the Umpire's section (of all places) to do this. It's no wonder why people are so misguided on this. You've got the rule book giving you a direct definition and then the umpire's section, under the freakin' words “Force Play”, describing in detail the force at 1st. Unbelievable...Thanks to all of you for educating me and have a Merry Christmas and a safe New Year.

No, it is not odd. It isn't part of the rules, not does it have any relevance to the interpretation or application of them. No different the people constantly calling the NCAA DI Championship a "world series" when it is neither.

[Makina]

Yes, all they had to do was touch 2nd base. It's no different than 2 outs, bases loaded, dropped strike 3 and the catcher just touches home plate for the out.