|
Yes, the concept of "batting out of order" and the penalty ascribed to it are rather simple. The point I was trying to have cleared up was about B3 "assuming"- or inheriting, or continuing, however you want to put it- B2's ball and strike count.
In trying to get a clarification, I posed the question, "Under what rule or interpretation does B3 assume the count of B2?".
Mike, you followed with a post that stated, "B3 assumes nothing".
I took your statement literally. It seemed to be a direct response to the question I asked, and I took that to mean the count for B3 would be 0-0 when she erroneously came to the plate. In other words, the count would be as if "she assumed nothing".
If that were the case, the enforcement of the BOO penalty would be quite different than the solution you had offered.
Clear up the count on B3 as she enters the batters box- it is 3-2- and the rest is easy to grasp. Unfortunately, our slight miscommunication made things less clear for me.
But now, things are crystal!
[Edited by BretMan on Feb 10th, 2006 at 10:06 AM]
|