|
mcrowder,
Take it easy there, big fella! Just offering up some opinions on a situation that isn't covered in black-and-white by the rule book.
If you can find some rule-based precedence that has B3 carrying on the count of the previous batter, who has not completed her time at bat, then I will defer to your ruling.
If we are considering B3 to be an improper batter- ie: a "new" batter- don't most new batters start with a "fresh" count?
As for your contention that, "You will find no rules that I'm aware of that even mention the term "assume the count"", I was not offering that phrase as as a verbatim rule book quote. However, there is one rule, even if you are not aware of it, that says exactly that.
If you check the rule regarding batting out of order you will find a phrase that is essentially identical: "If the error is discovered while the incorrect batter is at bat, the correct batter must take the batter's position and legally assume any balls and strikes".
In other words, "assume the count".
As for the other part of you post, where you asked, "How is this fair?", in response to one solution I proposed, the count on B2 actually would be 3-2 before the umpires game management went south and allowed B2 to think she was out when she wasn't and allowed the wrong batter to take her place in the batter's box. In effect, that solution would re-set things to exactly how they should have been before things got out of hand.
Not a perfect solution, perhaps. But, lacking a definitive rule-based solution, perhaps the best solution.
Having said all that, and having gone on much longer than I intended, and now having the luxury of a rule book in front of me which I didn't when first posting, another solution comes to mind.
I think I'll save that one for a little later this evening. In the meantime, I bet that Mike is enjoying watching us all go round and round!
|