Chris,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Viverito
I disagree. The penalty for BOO is to call the PB out and return runners who advanced on the IB's award or batted ball.
Wild-pitches, balks, errant pick-off throws are all excluded from that penalty.
I know - 'during' his time at bat. This is the mistake. That wild pitch is still a pitch until...you know.
|
That is not what the rule actually says. In the actual rule, at the end, there is the intriguing use of the phrase "...or otherwise".
While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Roder, and believe he has likely already forgotten more than I will ever know about umpiring, someone on a long-ago thread touching on the same question posted a BOOT "case play" from the J/R which included the following:
Quote:
|
...The umpire must decide whether Adams’ advance was due to King’s award or due to the wildness of the pitch (i.e., would Adams have advanced if the pitch had been ball three?). ...
|
I don't know if the case play is still there in more current editions of the J/R or not. But, in this one, "Adams" was a "forced runner" who advanced to 2B on a ball 4/wild pitch to an improper batter, which the defense then successfully appealed.
Upon reflection, I found the notion that "the umpire must decide.." whether Adams' advance was due to his award or the wild pitch to be patently absurd.
And it reflects my issue with the notion of "causality" implicit in the position held by you and others that it is the "effect" of the batter's specific "action" on the runner's advance that is material.
I mean, if the batter gets a walk and forced runners advance, what did the batter actually
do. He just stood there and "took the pitch". It was really more the pitcher who did all the "work". (Well, and the umpire, of course.)
Let's say an improper batter hits an "easy triple play ball" that the F5 boots the crap out of, allowing everybody to advance. Was it really the
batter's action that the runners' advances are "due to", or the multiple errors made by F5?
Or, as in the OP, an "unforced" R3 scores on a WP ball 4 or U3K. How do you know that the WP
wasn't "due to" the intimidating presence of the improper batter under the stressful conditions of a full count?
You don't. It's impossible to judge (at least in some cases) with any degree of consistency.
What would you do with the R3 if, instead of scoring, he were thrown out at the plate? (Yeah, I know, who in their right mind would appeal that? Let's just say they did.)
The only "clean" and "consistent" interpretation is that REGARDLESS of how the batter completed his at bat, and who did what to whom, is to treat all advances on the play the same. They either stand if not appealed or they are nullified upon appeal.
Until proven otherwise, that's my story, and I'm sticking with it.
JM