[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Though I hate to "taint" his conclusions by the support of a mere coach, I am squarely with Tim (BigUmp56) in his assertions on the question - though my train of thought is slightly different.



Rather than saying the improper batter's touch of 1B was "illegal" and the third out of the inning, I would say that, upon proper appeal, the proper batter became the 3rd out of the inning, and he definitely never touched 1B.

Since (I assume) we would all agree that if the improper batter had hit a single, the run would be nullified upon a proper BOOT appeal; and that we would further agree that if a proper batter had been called out on appeal for missing 1B for the 3rd out of the inning, no run would score; then I can see no support for suggesting that the run would score in the sitch posed by UMP25 in the initial post of this thread.

Further, (and I think I'm still on the same page with Tim here) I would further assert that the R3 would not score if the BOOT appeal out were only the 1st or 2nd out of the half inning rather than the 3rd out.

The rule says:


As Tim correctly points out, the R3 advanced after the improper batter had completed his at bat, not "...while the improper batter (was) at bat."



This reading is entirely consistent with the wording and intent of the rule. Namely, it is not illegal (i.e. there is no penalty) for sending an "out of turn" batter to the plate. It is illegal for an out of turn batter to complete an "at bat" - if the defense appeals.

JM

And you call yourself a coach.