Batting out of Order (w/ balk) [OBR]

[David Emerling]

I read the following from the following umpire's blog:
https://umpiresblog.wordpress.com/ (you have to scroll down a bit)

"...a balk is called with a runner on first base and the pitch is still thrown and the batter (who’s batting out of order) hits a double that scores the runner from first. If the manager appeals, as soon as the play is over the play—the balk—is nullified. The batter is sent back to hit and the runner is sent back to first. The at-bat is not over yet; the team batting still has the chance to send up the correct hitter without any penalty."

I'm having difficulty following the logic here. The defensive manager is aware that the current batter is batting out of order. The batter hits a double that scores a run. However, a balk was committed during the pitch. It seems that the manager's appeal is only negating the balk and is not affecting the batter. It seems the best he can do is negate the balk and cannot get an out for the batting out of order. Is that the way you read this?

[Rich Ives]

The appeal has to be for the BOO

The hit and advance is nullified.

Balk IS then enforced because there was no advance.

Because the BOO was appealed you call the proper batter out then sent the correct batter to the plate with a clean slate.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

THEN the proper batter is called out and the next in the order proper batter goes to the plate with a new AB.

Then, I take it you disagree with the statement in this blog that says, "...the team batting still has the chance to send up the correct hitter without any penalty." In other words, the defense cannot make a BOO appeal and gain an out on this play.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Then, I take it you disagree with the statement in this blog that says, "...the team batting still has the chance to send up the correct hitter without any penalty." In other words, the defense cannot make a BOO appeal and gain an out on this play.

They appealed it after he completed the AB. Run with the penalties.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

They appealed it after he completed the AB. Run with the penalties.

Run with penalties? Now, you're scoring the run?

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The appeal has to be for the BOO

The hit and advance is nullified.

Balk IS then enforced because there was no advance.

Because the BOO was appealed you call the proper batter out then sent the correct batter to the plate with a clean slate.

If the balk is enforced don't you have a no pitch and the same batter up?
Or do we dissregard the balk because the batter and all base runners advanced? After dissregarding the balk we then allow an appeal of BOO and proper batter is out and runner returned to 1B?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Run with penalties? Now, you're scoring the run?

Where I live to run with something means to proceed with it. Sorry if it was confusing.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by umpjim

If the balk is enforced don't you have a no pitch and the same batter up?
Or do we dissregard the balk because the batter and all base runners advanced? After dissregarding the balk we then allow an appeal of BOO and proper batter is out and runner returned to 1B?

I think you may be right on this.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by umpjim

If the balk is enforced don't you have a no pitch and the same batter up?

It seems that you are correct. And, since the same batter is up (the improper batter) - he is still batting - therefore, his hit never happened. And, now the offense can now put up the proper batter.

I don't know what to make of this ruling whereby the defense cannot get an out in this situation.

Personally, I would be inclined to use the following logic.
- Although there was a balk, the balk was completely negated because of the nature of the hit and advancement of runners. So, there was no balk.
- Yet, an improper batter reached based.
- A proper appeal was made on the improper batter. I would negate the improper batter's hit ... place the runner back on base ... and call out the proper batter.

Yet, it seems I'm wrong ... at least, according to this blog post.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

It seems that you are correct. And, since the same batter is up (the improper batter) - he is still batting - therefore, his hit never happened. And, now the offense can now put up the proper batter.

I don't know what to make of this ruling whereby the defense cannot get an out in this situation.

Personally, I would be inclined to use the following logic.
- Although there was a balk, the balk was completely negated because of the nature of the hit and advancement of runners. So, there was no balk.
- Yet, an improper batter reached based.
- A proper appeal was made on the improper batter. I would negate the improper batter's hit ... place the runner back on base ... and call out the proper batter.

Yet, it seems I'm wrong ... at least, according to this blog post.

I postulated two things and now think my second was more correct. The criteria to "disregard" existed (MLBUM/PBUC language). After disregarding the balk an appeal of a missed base would be upheld. I think an appeal of BOO should also be upheld.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Yet, it seems I'm wrong ... at least, according to this blog post.

Maybe you should ask the author as opposed to having us speculate as to his / her reasoning.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Maybe you should ask the author as opposed to having us speculate as to his / her reasoning.

Please do, because AFAICT it's a mixture of the two possible rulings (and I don't claim to know which one would be correct).
(In these rulings I'm calling them R1, B2 is the proper batter, BR is the improper batter who hit the double)

Ruling 1: Enforce the balk first and the BOO second.
a. Balk: Since every runner advanced at least one base, the balk is ignored.
b. BOO: BR removed from 2nd. R1 returns to first. B2 is out. B3 is the new proper batter.

Ruling 2: Enforce the BOO first and the balk second.
a. BOO: BR removed from 2nd. R1 returns to first. B2 is out.
b. Balk: Since not every runner advanced at least one base: nullify the play, R1 awarded 2nd, B2 is not out and is still the proper batter. Play resumes with the previous count on whomever the offense sends to the plate.

I can't see scoring a run in either situation. And if the blogger is enforcing the balk and not awarding an out for the BOO, why is R1 returned to first and not awarded 2nd?

[Publius]

The improper batter's (let's call him B8) at-bat is indeed over; he became a runner. The other site is simply wrong if they're saying the offense is able to replace him with the proper batter without penalty, or that the balk is now enforced as the result of a BOT appeal. The result of the play has been determined by rule.

With regard to the balk, never mind the legality of the batter and focus on the outcome of the play. The batter and all runners advanced, so ignore the balk.

Now deal with the appeal: Upon proper appeal, call the proper batter (say it was B6) out, remove B8 from the bases, return R1 to first, and send the new proper batter (i.e., B7) to the plate with a 0-0 count.

This is easy if you think about what you would do WITHOUT a proper appeal: run scores, B8 is now R2, B9 hits.

The appeal only undoes the result of the play, which has already been determined. You don't have to do anything beyond ruling on the appeal.