[QUOTE]
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Quote:
|
B3 assumes nothing as they are not supposed to be there. That is why it is BOO.
|
That's a point that trips me up.
If "B3 assumes nothing", then isn't her count 0-0?
If her count is 0-0, then one pitch is thrown- a ball- and the count becomes 1-0. At that point the defensive coach protests.
If we apply the BOO rule, the improper batter was discovered while still at bat. The correct ruling would be to replace her with the correct batter (B2) who then assumes B3's ball/strike count (1-0).
Steve:
I understand what happens when a legal sub is brought in to replace a batter- she assumes that batters count. This is, of course, not a legal substitute.
An illegal sub or unreported sub would also inherit the same count. But, if we resolve this play with the BOO rule, B3 can be neither of those.
You bring up the rules in the scoring section, but I see nothing in the scoring section of the ASA book that addresses who gets credit for the at bat when a batter is subbed for before her at bat is completed. So, no, the rules are not clear in the scoring section on this point. I believe that, by convention, the replacement batter is credited with the at bat, and the result of the at bat are added to her stats.
Another scoring convention is that when BOO happens and the proper batter (B2) is declared out, she is not credited with an at bat or plate appearance.
If B2 had no plate appearance, how can any pitches be considered to have been thrown to her, let alone a count accumulated and transfered to another batter?
As you say, consistency would "seem" to mandate B3 assumes the 3-2 count, and I would agree if B3 was a substitute, either legal, illegal or unreported. But if we resolve this play with the BOO rule, she is none of those.
Other than our "gut instinct" or feel for "consistency" what rule or interpretation justifies B3 assuming B2's count on this play?
Or, is it as Mike posted and "B3 assumes nothing"?