The B-R (an improper batter) was removed from 1st base having advanced there illegally - base not acquired so <i>enforce the balk</i>.

The proper batter (yet to appear at the plate in this inning) is called out on appeal for allowing his team mate to complete his at bat out of turn - base not acquired so <i>enforce the balk</i>.

According to 6.07(b.2)Note, R1's advance is LEGAL because he advanced on the balk - neither the proper batter NOR the improper batter legally acquired a base because the BOT appeal was upheld. See 8.05 Penalty.

What you apparently want to do is to cancel the BOT penalty because the defense balked on ball 4? If they had balked on any other pitch, <i>except</i> ball 4 or a dropped 3rd strike, then R1 would still be entitled to advance and the BOT penalty would remain on the table for later. Why not on those two pitches?

I think the problem is in presuming that enforcing the balk somehow means the batter cannot be out. Thereby hangs the entire dilemma in the subject scenario. But consider that the purpose of the balk rule is to protect the <b>BASE RUNNER</b> from illegal deception by the pitcher, <i>not</i> to protect the batter from an out on appeal for failing to bat in his proper turn.

Cheers

I'm sorry for the late reaction to the above statement, greymule. I've been mulling it over all day because it didn't sit quite right with me but I couldn't think why on the spur of the moment.

A "play" that includes an illegal advance or retreat - ie. a "missed" base - and the appeal play that draws the umpire's attention to the base running error and requests a determination are NOT separate plays. One event, the appeal, is a request for a ruling on the legality of the other, the "play".

For that reason I'd say your approach that the appeal is a second, separate "play" from the batter-runner's advance only begs the question. An appeal for a base running infraction is NOT, by rule, a "play or attempted play" for the purpose of the appeal rule. I would apply that same logic to the batting out of turn appeal - that appeal is not a "play or an attempted play" in its own right. It is instead a proper request for a ruling on the legitimacy of the play just completed.

Cheers

Here's the direct quote from MLB: (8:05)PENALTY: The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk.
As soon as the walk occurs, it appears to cancel the balk. Then the defense appeals BOT. R1 is out & R2 goes back to 1st.

Warren:
That's exactly what I'm saying. If the balk had occurred earlier in the count then he stays. Once it happens on ball 4 or uncaught strike 3 then the AB is over and the runner is returning. I don't think we will have a meeting of the minds but we can have fun disagreeing.

MLB rule 6.07(b) When an improper batter becomes a runner or is put out, and the defensive team appeals to the umpire before the first pitch to the next batter of either team, or before any play or attempted play, the umpire shall (1) declare the proper batter out; and (2) nullify any advance or score made because of a ball batted by the improper batter or because of the improper batter's advance to first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise.

The key word here is OTHERWISE. That covers a balk. R1 is out & R2 has to return to 1st.

No - you're misinterpreting that. You say "When an improper batter becomes a runner or is put out, and the defensive team appeals to the umpire before the first pitch to the next batter of either team, or before any play or attempted play, the umpire shall (1) declare the proper batter out; and (2) nullify any advance or score made because of a ball batted by the improper batter or because of the improper batter's advance to first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise.

The key word here is OTHERWISE. That covers a balk. R1 is out & R2 has to return to 1st."

Replace the word otherwise with the word balk then, if you think that is appropriate. Then the sentence becomes:

...nullify any advance... made because of ... the improper batter's advance to first base on a ... balk.

The batter did not advance to first base on a balk! He advanced on a walk. If the walk was the only reason R1 was moved to 2nd, you'd be right ... but it wasn't. The walk is nullified, thus leaving the balk as the proper reason to put the runner on 2nd. You guys are double-dipping here.

Still trying to see the light. What if, after the balk, BR had hit a home run. After the successful appeal for batting out of order, would you still put R1 on 2B, or is there something about the base on balls that's unique?

In the original case, why can't the offense claim, "Since BR did not actually advance to 1B, we'll opt not to take the result of the play but instead take the balk. So advance R1 to 2B, and we'll replace BR with the proper batter, who will assume BR's count"?

[Edited by greymule on Dec 17th, 2003 at 02:04 PM]

Yes, I would still put R1 on 2nd base, the base he would be entitled to because of the balk.

The improper batter-runner is removed from the bases and any advance he made is cancelled, including a home run. But R1 was NOT only entitled to advance on the base on balls that FOLLOWED the balk - under 8.05 Penalty he was also entitled to advance on the balk IF the other runners or the batter-runner did not reach the base to which they would be entitled BECAUSE of the balk. The proper batter did NOT reach 1st base LEGALLY, although it appears so pending the outcome of the BOT appeal. The proper batter did NOT reach 1st base at all!

The balk is a DELAYED DEAD BALL that is only effective when any play that follows is complete. The BOT appeal ensures that the following play, whether a hit an error a base on balls, or otherwise, is NOT fully complete until any appeal is determined. Appeals alter the results of plays every day.

If the appeal is upheld, enforce the balk.

If the appeal is denied, allow the walk.

Either way R1 is entitled to 2nd base.

If anyone still doubts the validity of that conclusion, here is the text of OBR 6.07(b.2)Note:<ul>If a <b>runner</b> advances, while the improper batter is at bat, on a stolen base, <b>balk</b>, wild pitch or passed ball, such advance is legal.<i>{my emphasis}</i></ul>Maybe we will end up agreeing to disagree, just like the original poster and his German compatriots. I think the ruling is clear but I can easily accept that others may not. It has been fun discussing it though. On that we will almost always agree! :D

Cheers

Please read OBR 6.07(b.2)NOTE, which makes a clear EXCEPTION in the case of balks, among other things.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

I'm not ready to give up having fun yet! :D

So if the defense balks on ball 4 or strike 3 you would deprive all offensive runners of any advance? Why?

For starters the balk rule is designed to protect RUNNERS. That protection is NOT dependent upon their team mates batting in the appropriate order.

The balk is a DELAYED DEAD BALL. Anything that follows it is only allowed in order to see if any runners can advance at least as far as they would be entitled to advance as the result of the balk. If any runner has to return FOR ANY REASON then he has NOT "ADVANCED" within the meaning of the rules and the balk penalty should therefore be enforced.

An appeal under OBR 6.07 is NOT a separate play! It is a request for a ruling on the legitimacy of any play action just completed. If the action, including the improper batter's advance on a walk, is ruled illegitimate then it is nullified, which means it NEVER HAPPENED. Therefore the base on balls NEVER HAPPENED. Enforce the balk.

<i>{All Caps used only for emphasis. No shouting intended}</i>

Hope this helps

Cheers

But Warren, you are missing the other half of the argument. If you apply the balk then the ball doesn't get called. Because they appealed at first base, everyone knows he is wrong. That means the improper batter stays at bat. Being he returns then you just switch batters.
If you agree then we would then be in agreement. Any other way I just see how you can get an out and the balk call.

Hi Everybody,

my name is Marc and I am one of the german umpires who goes the same way like warren.

6.07 b2note says that the balk stays when the balk happend during the at bat of the improper batter.

And this is the point. The improper batter is still at bat.

Some people will say now that according to 6.04 the improper batter has ended his at bat and therefore we can not use 6.07b2note.

I think this is wrong because 6.04 says that a batter ends his at bat LEGALLY when he is put out or he becomes a runner.

But how can an impropper batter ends his at bat legally?

marc

P.S. Sorry for my bad englisch but I hope you guys understand my point of few.

From 6.02 : "NOTE: If a runner advances, while the improper batter is at bat, on a stolen base, balk, wild pitch or passed ball, such advance is legal."

R2 doesn't advance while the improper batter is at bat. R2 advanced on the BB. Once the appeal for BOT is confirmed, R1 is out, and R2 goes back to first. You can't say that the runner can advance AFTER the at bat. It's not what the rule says.


SEPARATE NIT PICKING:
"In this case, however, R1 could be considered to have advanced either by the balk - first defensive error - or the base on balls - second defensive error." from Warren, earlier.

Why is a BB considered an error? Maybe the defense was afraid of the hitter.... Maybe they realized the BOT and tried to get the out!

The at bat isn't legally ended until the results of any appeal are known, the same as no run is legally scored until the results of any base running error are appealed and dealt with OR until the next pitch, play or attempted play by the defense.


See OBR 5.05.

Note that an <i>intentional</i> base on balls, clearly signalled and executed, should obviously not be considered a defensive error for these purposes.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Enforcing the balk would normally nullify the pitch IF the batter and all runners did not ADVANCE on the following play. Yes, you would bring the batter back to bat with the same count and advance the runners.

BUT, that doesn't apply to actions that result from offensive errors such as BOT, passing a preceding runner or being thrown out after having overrun the advance base and missing it in passing.

Some people would have any and all outs made following a balk nullified, even if the runner has advanced beyond the base to which he would have been entitled but for the balk - see OBR 8.05 Penalty and AR1.

That argument was waged a couple of months ago over at eteamz, with Jim Evans eventually declaring by proxy that the out is nullified despite the wording of AR1. I'm still not comfortable with that interpretation. It allows the offense to manipulate the balk penalty to their advantage to avoid making an out while trying for runs on extra bases following a balk.

My best advice is to keep it simple. The balk occurred. Subsequent action is only to determine if all runners including the batter-runner advanced safely to or beyond the base to which they would have been entitled on the balk. The BOT appeal ensures that can never be the case when the B-R was an improper batter.

If there was NO balk, R1 would rightly be returned under 6.07(b.2) ... but there WAS a balk, so R1 should be kept at 2nd base under 6.07(b.2)Note.

Claiming the improper batter's at bat was officially over just to prevent the advance of R1 on the ball 4/ strike 3 balk is an advantage for the defense clearly not intended by the rules IMHO.

Cheers