mcrowder,
I would agree that well-informed and intelligent people can and have come to opposite conclusions on this particular question (i.e. whether a non-forced R3 scoring on a wild pitch ball four to an improper batter which is subsequently appealed with less than 2 out is allowed to score or returned to 3B).
The interpretation that says
all action on the play where the improper batter completes his at bat is nullifed and superceded by the out on the proper batter makes the most sense to me, and, in my opinion, is most consistent with the text and spirit of the rule.
The key things that make me think this are:
1. The phrase "...
while the improper batter is at bat..." in the part of the rule that says which advances are allowed/legal.
2. The use of the phrase "...
or otherwise..." in describing what advances are not allowed. And the fact that the rule explicitly disallows advances that result from "misplays" by the defense ("...
an error...") on plays where the batter becomes a runner.
3. The general principle behind the rules that the team engaging in illegal activity cannot benefit from doing so.
4. The "slipperiness" of the notion of causality. Where does it begin, where does it end? Was the wild pitch "caused" by the improper batter standing too close to the plate, or not? Was the fielding error that allowed the batter to reach 1B safely and the R3 to score "caused" by the batter, or not. Where do you draw the end of the line on the "chain of causality"?
I do not believe there
is an unambiguous, authoritative ruling that supports either
my position or the opposite. And there is enough ambiguity that either could be correct.
I like the NCAA wording much better:
Quote:
(2) If the improper batter becomes a base runner or is put out and an
appeal is made to the umpire-in-chief before a pitch to the next batter
of either team, or a play or attempted play, the proper batter is
declared out and all runners return to bases held before action by the
improper batter.
|
JM