|
EdJW; it is appropriate for the plate umpire to restate the count as 3-2. At that point, one might assume someone on the offense would see the miscue, and fix it. The one point missed by many, and I am assuming as a result of the OP, is that PU doesn't see the swap of players. I think the OP says BU goes toward 3rd (appropriately) in the holding zone to protect the play where R1 is stealing; I am thinking that is a typo, meaning PU, and PU does not realize the wrong batter has stepped up
Bret; what happens when a legal sub is brought in with a 3-2 count? The rules are clear in the scoring section who gets credit for the strikeout or a walk, and this it is clear that a legal sub assumes the current account. Why would consistency not mandate that an illegal sub, an unreported sub, or even another player batting out of order, assume the standing count? In my mind, that is a given. The current batter has not completed the current at-bat, the third out is not made, therefore the current count stands.
Mike; "abandonment" is a false ruling related to 8-2.D, when a batter-runner fails to advance to first base and enters the team area, and 8-7.U, when a runner abandons a base and enters the team area. I have heard (as, I am sure, have you) of many cases of incorrect rulings attempting to use that premise where batter-runners did not head directly to first, or, in this case, where someone who is neither a runner nor a batter-runner left the field. It doesn't apply, and we (most of us) know that; I was answerering that as a being incorrect before it was suggested.
I am gratified to see that, after all the dust clears, my initial statement still seems to stand. We have BOO; and nothing else, really. The rest is over-analysis. R1 stays on 2B; B2 is out on BOO. B3's at-bat (the final pitch to B2's at bat) is nullified, and is removed from 1st. B3 is now at bat with a fresh count. ASA 7-2.
|