[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Chris,

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". JM

I agree. I was paraphrasing bro.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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:

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. JM

That case is not in my 12th ed. But if it was I would say hooray for J/R. A runner forced to advance by an award to an IB is nullified if properly appealed.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.JM

Absurd? "The umpire must decide" makes perfect sense to me. I agree that it would be a difficult sell - but by the rule I can let Adams stay at 2d if I believe he would have gotten there on the WP.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.JM

That is not my argument. Mine is that the purpose of the rule is to keep runners from advancing by an IB batted ball or by being forced to advance by an IB award.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.) JM

This is purely argumentative. It's not what the IB does...it's WHY are the runners are advancing.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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?JM

No - again - it's not what the batter did. It's WHY are the runners advancing. Because they were forced to when the batter became a runner - they are returned upon successful BOO appeal.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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?JM

Maybe it was. But...as your feeble attempt to be a wise cracker...it is irrelevant. It's not what the batter does...it's that the umpire does his job.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

You don't. It's impossible to judge (at least in some cases) with any degree of consistency.JM

If you dream it, you can conceive it.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.)JM

Simple. He's out. All outs that occur during the continuous action are upheld. Didn't you read the rule dude?

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.JM

Again - I must disagree. I believe the cleanest and most consistent way to approach this is to look upon the rule for its purpose. Which I believe is to negate the advancement of runners when an IB bats the ball in play or forces them to advance due to an award.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Until proven otherwise, that's my story, and I'm sticking with it. JM

That's cool guru. Good luck explaining that on the field.

Until proven otherwise I will allow runners to advance unless the IB advances them on a batted ball or by forcing them to advance by an award AND the BOO is properly appealed.

JM - leave it to you my friend.

One last point...at any other time 'during' the at bat the runners would be allowed their advancement on a WP for ball 1, 2, or 3. So - why (other than the word 'during') would they be returned on ball 4?

Stir it up bro.