Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcrowder
Surely you see the inequity in that situation, yet this is exactly what you were proposing to do earlier - allowing an appeal after a subsequent batter was called out for something he did during his at bat..
|
I agree.
Bob's scenario was a 4th out sitch as opposed to this one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcrowder
To answer your other question, if the defense wanted to appeal, there is no conceivable reason for them to get set, wait for the next batter to get in the box, and then appeal. Even if PU didn't know an appeal was pending, he must make sure all previous play is finished before allowing a new batter to come to the plate.
I admit this gets tricky in the levels/rulesets that require a live ball for an appeal - but a good umpire is aware of his surroundings. Usually, even if PU didn't see the missed base, players/coaches/fans all over are hollering about the missed base. But these two cases illustrate why it's imperative for there to be a separation of sorts between a subsequent play (be it a batter called out for not being present, or a batter called out for an illegal bat, etc.)
I suppose if an umpire was having an off-day and flubbed this (either the pipe bat or the out for the missing player) by ringing up a batter prior to a possible appeal, the appeal out needs to be rung up before any future outs (illegal bat, missing player, etc) with respect to figuring out whether runs score on the previous play.
|
I agree totally. Your explanation is reality based.
My agreement with Bob and subsequent posts were based on the sitch posted and the theoritical.
If an illegal batter was called out upon stepping into the box and the defense wanted to appeal the previous play which would then be the 4th out. I would use creative license to allow it.
But I do agree that proper management would be to prevent that from happening in the 1st place.