clintbos wrote:Imperial SB Dad wrote:
Am I wrong the runner coming from home is a force out at first??????
No you are not wrong in saying force out at first...Technically though, It is considered a "put out". The rule book never qualifies the Batter-Runner being "Forced Out". A force out and a put out have the same effect. It is semantics is what I am saying.
Batter-Runner - A Batter-Runner is a player who has finished a turn at bat but has not yet been
put out or touched first base.
You may go read or already have read the other thread that was spoken about but it really was about what constitutes a proper appeal not anything about what is a force out.
Clint, this is exactly why we say you just don't get it. Not sure exactly why (maybe because you are from Georgia), but I'm going to give it one more try.
Your whole problem is that you are ignoring or overlooking the absolute first generalization regarding rule books; and it stems from legal documents, too. It isn't "sematics" when a term is defined!! A
defined term is
EXACTLY what the
definition says it is. No more, no less, and certainly
NOT when the general public colloquially misrepresents it to be by common belief, misunderstanding, or general similarity. It is what it is, and nothing else.
So you have been told over and over to read the
definition, and you say that doesn't matter, tell me what the difference is. OK, in the simplest terms, no play at first base meets the
definition of a force play. Isn't that clear enough?? It is a timing play. Period. One where the defense isn't required to tag the runner, but
THAT (not required to tag the runner)
ISN'T the actual
definition of a force play.
Riddle me this. If the play at first base on a batter-runner is a force play, why does the rule 5.5-B(1) specify no run can score if the batter-runner is called out prior to reaching first base
OR any
OTHER runner forced out "due to the batter becoming a batter-runner"? Wouldn't that be one and the same if it
WERE a force play? Well, it isn't redundant, because the
definition says it isn't. Not semantics, a
definition.
So, not the right thread, but you are wrong in the other thread for the same reason. You want sematics to let you do what you feel the ruling should be, but an appeal play is
ALSO a
defined term. The umpire cannot make a decision
UNLESS REQUESTED. Standing on first base after a play at first base without making some indication that you are appealing simply isn't a request; it is standing on first base with the ball. Nothing more, until you make it clear that you are requesting an appeal. Live ball, dead ball; must meet the
definition in all cases.
The live ball appeal on a runner returning on a ball caught in flight doesn't require verbalization because everyone can see that there is one and only one obvious play being attempted by the defense. The offense even tells you so by attempting to return. So, fine, not verbalized. But if the runner isn't attempting to return, most umpires will ask what you are doing, or at least wait for you to say if you make that live ball appeal. (Oh yeah, not a force play, even though the put out doesn't require a tag of the runner, it is a timing play).
When one and only one obvious play, no verbalization needed to explain the request. If there can be any doubt, more than one possibility ( a) didn't the throw beat her?, b) appealing she attempted second, and/or c) appealing she missed the base), then the defense is required to
REQUEST a decision. By the
definition, again, not semantics.