Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn
There's no BOO here at all. B2 batted and the first pitch to the next batter made all of B2's at bat legal. B3 bats after B2. Nothing to puzzle out on this one.
|
That's correct but it goes against what you've been trying to say. You want to be able to correct the batting order when it's discovered in your weird case but not in the normal case.
If the first pitch made B2's at bat legal then it made B3 the next batter immediately. But you've pointed out that the rule doesn't say that. It says if the error is discovered after a pitch, then B2's at bat is legal.
If you rely on the when discovered language (and apply that to mean when appealed) then it seems you have to rely on it here too. And here, B2 was never discovered batting out of order so B2's at bat was never made legal. If B2's at bat was never legalized then B3 is batting for B2 (because B2 is due up after B1) and is out for batting out of order.
The conclusion is only ridiculous because contrary to the way the rule is written the batting order is meant to change as soon as a pitch is thrown.