greymule,
I am reasonably certain that, other than in FED, if the defense properly appeals the BOOT, any outs made on the play are nullified.
This is what the MLBUM says in the section on BOOT:
Quote:
|
Any advance or outs made because of an improper batter becoming a runner would be nullified if the defensive team appeals at the proper time. (Outs made because of a pick-off or caught stealing while the improper batter is at bat are legal.) Play is to revert back to the position of the runners at the time the improper batter took a position in the batter's box (with the exception of advances covered in the Note to Official Baseball Rule 6.07(b) or outs made on a pick-off or steal play while the improper batter is at bat).
|
I find the wording of the rule text somewhat ambiguous as well, and have no idea why it is worded the way it is.
I believe the rule "means" what mbyron suggests in his post above.
You will observe that the "6.07(b) Note" giving examples of advances that would stand ONLY includes things that could happen while the improper batter remains a batter.
The text of 6.07 that talks about advances that are to be nullified I believe is meant to be an exhaustive list of ALL the ways a batter might possibly complete his at bat ("or otherwise" makes it comprehensive - I can only come up with U3K & CI as the only two things covered by "or otherwise") rather than a suggestion that the umpire judge whether the "batter's action" caused the advance or the runner advanced for some "other" reason.
To me that is the interpretation most consistent with the text of the rules and the collective interpretation manuals.
JM