Poorly written or not?

[BretMan]

Trying to think of a play to illustrate this...

Bases loaded, one out. Batter hits safely to outfield.

In this order:

1) Runner from third scores.

2) Runner from first misses second base on the way to third.

3) Runner on second gets thrown out at the plate.

4) Defense appeals the missed base.

If the appeal (in this case a force out) was enforced when the infraction occurred, then:

The second out was the force out, the third out was the tag play at the plate. This would mean that the run scores.

If the appeal/force out is enforced at the time of the appeal, then:

The second out is the tag at the plate, the third out is a force out. No run scores.

As far as the wording of the rule, it literally means exactly what it says. It's just that it's such a rare occurrence that chances are it's never come up in one of your games before. It's kind of an obscure rule and I don't believe that I've ever had to apply it in a game I've umpired. But if it happens, I'm ready!

 

[SoCal_Dad]

On an appeal play, the force out is determined when the appeal is made, not when the infraction occurred.

I do believe it is simple. IMO, all you have to do is read and apply what is written and not try to outthink it or make any assumptions.
Typical MTR response...

Anyone have a better way to word it?

IMO, "the force out is determined" is too vague and/or cryptic for most people to understand the sentence when they initially read it. Many people pass over "force" and misunderstand it to mean the appeal is treated like a timing play in regards to runs scoring. It only takes a few more words to make it clearer.
- "whether it is a force out or not is determined"
- "the status of the runner for a force out is determined"

I initially found ASA's rule odd because subsequent plays can negate what was a force out and it is different from the other rule sets. ASA's rule only makes sense to me when you consider how difficult it can be to determine whether a runner was forced at the time of the infraction (e.g. did the runner miss 2B before or after the B/R was out at 1B).

 

[MTR]

I do believe it is simple. IMO, all you have to do is read and apply what is written and not try to outthink it or make any assumptions.
Typical MTR response...

Well, cannot help what I think and simply am not going to change it because you have a problem with it. And yes, that is my typical response. An appeal is a separate play. If there is no force when an appeal is made, how can an out be considered a force out?

IMO, "the force out is determined" is too vague and/or cryptic for most people to understand the sentence when they initially read it. Many people pass over "force" and misunderstand it to mean the appeal is treated like a timing play in regards to runs scoring.

So your issue is that since people don't know how to read it is difficult to understand? Just how far do you want to dummy-down?

It only takes a few more words to make it clearer.
- "whether it is a force out or not is determined"
- "the status of the runner for a force out is determined"

Okay, but that is covered in Rule 1.

I initially found ASA's rule odd because subsequent plays can negate what was a force out and it is different from the other rule sets. ASA's rule only makes sense to me when you consider how difficult it can be to determine whether a runner was forced at the time of the infraction (e.g. did the runner miss 2B before or after the B/R was out at 1B).

ASA handles it the same as every other play. If you retire a trailing runner, the force is removed. If the 3rd out is not a force out and a runner reaches the plate prior to the execution of that out, the run counts.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Well, cannot help what I think and simply am not going to change it because you have a problem with it. And yes, that is my typical response.
The problem is you don't care whether most people can understand it when they read it without additional instruction and/or clarification. Communication is a combination of transmitting and receiving. If the message isn't received properly by most people, you need to consider the problem is on the transmission side rather than always blaming the receiver.

An appeal is a separate play. If there is no force when an appeal is made, how can an out be considered a force out?
Just like all the other major rule sets, go by the time of the infraction.

So your issue is that since people don't know how to read it is difficult to understand?
There you go again, blaming the reader. It really isn't an issue with their ability to read.
Just how far do you want to dummy-down?
Writing clearly and precisely without implying is not dummying it down. I provided clearer examples as you requested, but evidently you didn't really want them.

Okay, but that is covered in Rule 1.
Rule 1 only defines force out. The problem is most people, even the ones that know the definition of a force out, don't realize that is what is being determined. Even Bretman had a completely different take on it.

ASA handles it the same as every other play. If you retire a trailing runner, the force is removed. If the 3rd out is not a force out and a runner reaches the plate prior to the execution of that out, the run counts.
Wrong - that would mean runs count when the 3rd out is the result of a B-R being called out prior to reaching 1B. LOL

It's pathetic that you blame others for not being able to read, yet you have great difficulty following what others have written.

 

[MTR]

Well, cannot help what I think and simply am not going to change it because you have a problem with it. And yes, that is my typical response.
The problem is you don't care whether most people can understand it when they read it without additional instruction and/or clarification. Communication is a combination of transmitting and receiving. If the message isn't received properly by most people, you need to consider the problem is on the transmission side rather than always blaming the receiver.

Okay, let's try the present day parlance, "whatever".

An appeal is a separate play. If there is no force when an appeal is made, how can an out be considered a force out?
Just like all the other major rule sets, go by the time of the infraction.

ASA follows with the basis of the rule. No different than if F3 fields a ground ball with bases loaded, touches 1B and then throws to 2B. A tag must be made because the retirement of the BR removed any force of any runner. And really do not care about any other rule set, we are discussing ASA

So your issue is that since people don't know how to read it is difficult to understand?
There you go again, blaming the reader. It really isn't an issue with their ability to read.

No, YOU blamed the reader. Does this look familiar? Many people pass over "force" and misunderstand it

Just how far do you want to dummy-down?
Writing clearly and precisely without implying is not dummying it down. I provided clearer examples as you requested, but evidently you didn't really want them.

Nice red herring. You responded to one statement citing another.

Okay, but that is covered in Rule 1.
Rule 1 only defines force out. The problem is most people, even the ones that know the definition of a force out, don't realize that is what is being determined. Even Bretman had a completely different take on it.

That's correct, it defines a force out. And when you apply that definition as the rule instructs, it should provide the answer.

ASA handles it the same as every other play. If you retire a trailing runner, the force is removed. If the 3rd out is not a force out and a runner reaches the plate prior to the execution of that out, the run counts.
Wrong - that would mean runs count when the 3rd out is the result of a B-R being called out prior to reaching 1B. LOL

Oh, I see that herring is back in the boat. No, that is specifically stated in the rule since we are discussing when the application of an appeal is made.

It's pathetic that you blame others for not being able to read, yet you have great difficulty following what others have written.

See first response

 

[coach james]

That appeal comment doesn't make much common sense to me.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

ASA follows with the basis of the rule. No different than if F3 fields a ground ball with bases loaded, touches 1B and then throws to 2B. A tag must be made because the retirement of the BR removed any force of any runner.
This really doesn't address the alternative I provided in response to your question.
And really do not care about any other rule set, we are discussing ASA
Actually, this discussion was about the wording of one sentence, but you keep venturing off. I simply answered the question you asked and referenced the other sanctions for clarification.

No, YOU blamed the reader. Does this look familiar? Many people pass over "force" and misunderstand it
No, I merely pointed out one of the ways this poorly worded statement is misinterpreted. I blame the wording and you blame the reader, as usual.

Nice red herring. You responded to one statement citing another.
Unfortunately, I'm limited by your statements/questions and the order you made them. It was dumb for you to ask me "how far do you want to dummy-down?" after I had already provided examples of clearer wording.

That's correct, it defines a force out. And when you apply that definition as the rule instructs, it should provide the answer.
The rule is not clear that the force out is up for determination. It can easily be misinterpreted as the force out is a given and it is just explaining how to apply the force out (e.g. see BretMan's post).

Oh, I see that herring is back in the boat. No, that is specifically stated in the rule since we are discussing when the application of an appeal is made.
I obviously know it is covered in the rule and I pointed out your error so it wouldn't mislead others. When you go off on a tangent with a wider explanation, it is incumbent upon you to present it accurately.

This thread has shown that the wording is not clear for non-umpires as well as for some umpires. All of the respondants that couldn't understand it have previously demonstrated their reading competency is more than adequate on this board, so it is not them that are deficient. Case closed.

It's common sense that whenever ASA has to issue a clarification because the wording in a rule is not clear for many/most people, they should follow up by improving the wording in the rule. It is crazy not to fix the root source of the problem.

 

[Umpire]

Here is an example I found online.

Force out. When an appeal is the third out of an inning and is a force out, no runs will score. The force is reinstated when a forced runner retreats toward her original base and the runner may be put out if a fielder tags the runner or the base to which she is forced. If the batter-runner is retired before reaching first base, all force outs are eliminated. In ASA, on an appeal play, the force out is determined when the appeal is made, not when the infraction occurred.

In NFHS, NCAA, USSSA FP and USSSA SP, the status of a runner on a force play is based on whether she was forced or not forced at the time she missed the base. If the runner were forced when she missed the base, the play is still a force play when the appeal is made. Play 1: R3 is on third and R1 is on first with one out when B1 hits safely to right field. R3 scores but R1 misses second and advances safely to third as B1 is thrown out at second for the second out. The defensive team then successfully appeals that R1 missed second base and R1 is out for the third out of the inning. Ruling 1: In ASA, since the force was removed at the time of the appeal (even though it was in effect at the time of the infraction), R3’s run scores.

In NFHS, NCAA, USSSA FP and USSSA SP, since the force was in effect at the time of the infraction, the appeal at second on R1 is a force out so R3’s run is nullified.

This is correct. This rule is unique to ASA (in the softball world). The rule was changed in 2004 to read the way it currently does.


Here’s a sure fire way to determine that the force is removed in our play especially with ASA’s current statement: You could theoretically (but not actually) take R1 standing on third and move her back to second and back to first so she could stand on first so if they called her out on appeal how can it be a force out if at the time of the appeal she could return and occupy her original base?

Though it may be more confusing, ASA's rule and interpretation makes logical and philosophical sense.

 

[Greenmonsters]

This thread has shown that the wording is not clear for non-umpires as well as for some umpires. All of the respondants that couldn't understand it have previously demonstrated their reading competency is more than adequate on this board, so it is not them that are deficient. Case closed.

It's common sense that whenever ASA has to issue a clarification because the wording in a rule is not clear for many/most people, they should follow up by improving the wording in the rule. It is crazy not to fix the root source of the problem.

Case in point, as I noted in Post #2 regarding the bolded portion of the following:

B. No run shall be scored if the third out of the inning is the result of:
1. A batter-runner being called out prior to reaching first base or any other runner forced out due to the batter becoming a batter-runner.

Strict reading of this logically can be interpreted to mean that the run scores if the umpire calls out the batter/runner AFTER the batter/runner reached or passed first base.

 

[CJ D]

Wrong, batter never reached 1st safely, no run scores.

I hear you, and I'm not disagreeing. Only telling what was called. Batter/runner was tagged going to 1st..almost forgot about that. Delayed out was the call. Never have even remotely heard if such a thing. But it went in my favor so I wasn't exactly arguing. We lost by 1 anyway, so nothing more than a lesson learned. This was at our state tournament which was a joke in and of itself. USFA. Which as I understand it from talking to some of the umpires only requires a $35 fee to be an umpire. Nothing more.

Same crew the same game also told me that batter only has to have one foot in the box to be "legal". Making it perfectly fine to have front foot of batter 45' from pitchers plate in 12U. Also had the PU instruct the opposing teams batter on where she could stand when I asked him between innings to please keep an eye on a particular batter who was an extreme violator of the rule.