[Carl Childress]

To see how the FED treats the meaning of “supersede,” study 3-1-1 in conjunction with batting out of order.

Irwin is on third. Able should bat, but Kent bats and singles. Irwin scores.

Before a pitch to the next batter, the defense appeals that Kent was an illegal substitute, and the umpire agrees. Kent is out, and Irwin returns to third. Now Able steps up to bat.

The defense wants Able declared out because he didn't bat in proper order. They want Baker at the plate.

“No,” says the umpire. “The penalty for illegal substitution supersedes the penalty for batting out of order.”

The umpire’s point: Nobody has batted out of order yet! Irwin was the last legal batter and he's on base. The next legal batter is Able.

My point: The defense can't have two outs on the play.

Ah, but there's more. The FED adopted the rigorous penalties for "illegal substitution" in 1994. The statute included this curious phrase: "If applicable, the batting out of order rules shall be enforced."

That led me to construct the following play for the 1994 BRD:

[With the bases loaded] Able should bat but illegal substitute Bubba bats and ... in (b) singles, driving in two runs, after which he is appealed before a pitch .... In (b) Bubba is out (illegal sub rule) and Able is out (batting out of order rule); the two runs are canceled and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the last pitch to Bubba. Baker is now the proper batter with two outs and the bases loaded .... Note: The idea of “two outs for one at bat” is foreign to the basic concepts of the game, which include “three up and three down.” In researching [this play], my editor [Scott Ehret] and I received conflicting information, but “two are out” was the most frequent ruling.

Kyle McNeeley, then a consultant to the Texas State Umpires Association, agreed: Two are out. [Kyle is now a permanent member of the NFHS rules committee.]

This situation lasted only until 1996, when, after listening to the BRD, the FED adopted a major change: "The penalty for illegal substitution supersedes the penalty for batting out of order."

Amazing! Now I remember why I stopped posting. Too many experts with too many egos to defend.

I do not include Pete Booth in the group of ego-defenders. He quoted 8.1.1L. Pete, there's a difference. In the play in question, the MC "supersedes" the obstruction. In your play, there's no MC, so it's a simple ruling: Any runner advancing keeps his base, and the batter gets first. Sorry. Not relevant to the discussion.