[greymule]

My difficulty is in understanding the precise meaning of "because of the improper batter's advance to 1B." Obviously, this covers runners who were forced to advance because the improper batter, for example, received a base on balls. Send those runners back.

But in the play I posted, you could argue it either way (I guess).

Suppose with no outs and Abel on 2B, Charles bats instead of Baker. On ball 4 to Charles, Abel steals 3B. After a proper appeal, I would leave Abel on 3B, since he did not advance as a result of a batted ball or Charles's advance to 1B. He simply stole 3B.

But how about this?:

Abel on 3B, no outs. Charles bats instead of Baker and takes ball 4. Charles proceeds to 1B but continues on to 2B. The defense plays on Charles and Abel scores. The defense then appeals the BOO. (Whether or not Charles was put out is irrelevant.) Would you allow Abel's run to score? In other words, was Abel's advance "as a result of Charles's advance to 1B," or simply an event that occurred along with it? I think I'd go with the former and send Abel back to 3B, but I admit I'm not sure.