Quote:
Originally posted by WestMichBlue
I assume that you are interpreting 7.2.C.2.b that any advance made as a result of the improper batter becoming a B-R also appies to the improper batter, not just the other runners affected.
If true, then why do you need a separate rule (7.2.C.4) to remove the B-R from the base to bat again? That rule is redundant if 7.2.C.2.b automatically removes the B-R from the base.
Conversely, if "B9 was never there" (the NFHS interpretation), how can you get an out on B9 if she grounded out rather than hitting safetly? The "any outs" in 7.2.C.2.b would only apply to runners that really were there.
WMB
|
I am interpreting 7.2-C(2).b to include removing the incorrect batter-runner if she is still on base, but to keep the out if she made an out, if appealed before the next pitch. This does not state B9 was never there; it says to nullify the advances resulting from the improper batter becoming a batter-runner. To me, that would certainly include the batter-runner. The 7.2-C(2).c EXCEPTION then becomes the exception(as only 1 of 8 possible wrong batters would fit that condition), not the general rule.
Conversely, 7.2-C(4) does
NOT exist for a redundant removal of the batter-runner; rather, it exists to tell you
NOT to remove an incorrect baserunner that hasn't been properly appealed, and may be on base while her scheduled batting position comes up. It refers to a situation
OTHER than removal in reference to 7.2-C(2).b (clearly suggesting, I might add, the assumption that 7.2-C(2).b-c tell you to remove the batter-runner even if safe).