Balk with BOT - Question from Germany

[TM]

Warren, please consider:

The decision balk or play and the BOT-decision are two different plays.

Imagine the situation as the umpire:
We're at the time when the walk just happened.
You have to decide, stands the balk or the play.
You know NOTHING about the BOT, you don't know if the defence will make a BOT appeal!!

You have now to decide: balk or play (of course by OR 8.05 penalty).
Remember, whatever you decide, the other way will be thrown out of the window completly.
If the balk stands, no part of the play will have any effects.
If the play stands, the balk will be nullified COMPLETLY and FOREVER.
You can't have him back.

So, after the BOT appeal, there is no balk at all any more and so no way to use it to put the runner on 2nd.

There are no loops!

TM

[TM]

Originally posted by Marc Z.


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

Hi Marc, I'm at your heels again,

to answer your question: just by making NO BOT appeal

In this case the improper ends his at bat legally.

By this answer you can also see there is no sense in making a difference between the proper or the improper batter ends his at bat, the ACTUAL batter ends his at bat, that's the important point.

Whether there is a BOT appeal following is an absolut new thing.

TM

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by TM
Warren, please consider:

The decision balk or play and the BOT-decision are two different plays.

They are indeed two different decisions, but they are both part of the same play that commenced with the pitcher starting his delivery and ended with the successful appeal for batting out of turn. The appeal is simply a request for the umpire to rule on whether the play was completed legitimately or not.

Originally posted by TM
Imagine the situation as the umpire:
We're at the time when the walk just happened.
You have to decide, stands the balk or the play.
You know NOTHING about the BOT, you don't know if the defence will make a BOT appeal!!

You have now to decide: balk or play (of course by OR 8.05 penalty).

This is part of the problem, TM. You haven't gone back far enough in the action. The balk penalty says the ball is DEAD immediately the balk is committed - ie BEFORE the following pitch became a ball - but we delay that dead ball only to see if the offense can ADVANCE on any following play even more than the minimum one base the balk penalty would allow.

On the play that followed THIS balk, the offense did NOT advance because the play was ruled illegal on appeal under 6.07(a). Enforce the balk. R1 stays at 2nd under 6.07(b.2)Note.

Note the use of the word "ADVANCE" in relation to runners in the balk Penalty, as opposed to "REACH" in relation to the batter-runner. That word has a very specific meaning. If R1 ends up back at 1st base then he did not "ADVANCE" at least one base on the play. Oh sure, he walked to 2nd and then was called back, but he did not "ADVANCE".

Originally posted by TM
Remember, whatever you decide, the other way will be thrown out of the window completly.
If the balk stands, no part of the play will have any effects.
If the play stands, the balk will be nullified COMPLETLY and FOREVER.
You can't have him back.

So, after the BOT appeal, there is no balk at all any more and so no way to use it to put the runner on 2nd.

There are no loops!

TM

Everything you said was true up until you drew the conclusion "So, after the BOT appeal, there is no balk at all any more and so no way to use it to put the runner on 2nd." That conclusion is NOT supported by the rules. The balk happened FIRST. It takes precedence over ALL action that follows. The ball is technically dead immediately the balk was committed, according to 8.05 Penalty, but any following play is allowed to proceed in case the offense can make more bases than the balk penalty would allow. That "play" does NOT end when the improper batter reaches 1st base on the base on balls. It only ends when the results of the defensive BOT appeal are known.

Inherent in the rules is that all advances on the base path must be LEGAL. There can be no legal advance if an appeal against that advance is subsequently upheld. With no legal advance you must enforce the balk.

1. The improper batter "reached" 1st base on the walk, but
2. that was declared an illegal advance on appeal so
3. the advance made by R1 on the walk was cancelled.
4. Since R1 did not advance on the walk he is now entitled to advance on the balk penalty.

TM you cannot use one defensive error - ie the unintentional base on balls - to cancel the effects of another defensive error that occurred first - ie the balk. The moment the balk is committed R1 is entitled to advance to 2nd base. The only way that doesn't happen as a Penalty for the balk is if R1 gets to advance legally at least that far for some other reason. Walking to 2nd and being called back does NOT constitute an "advance" within the meaning of the rules.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by TM

Hi Marc, I'm at your heels again,

to answer your question: just by making NO BOT appeal

In this case the improper ends his at bat legally.

By this answer you can also see there is no sense in making a difference between the proper or the improper batter ends his at bat, the ACTUAL batter ends his at bat, that's the important point.

Whether there is a BOT appeal following is an absolut new thing.

TM

NO! The improper batter doesn't end his at bat "legally" until the next pitch, play or attempted play prevents any further appeal under 6.07(a)!

The rule on batting out of turn requires vigilance on the part of both the offense and the defense. If the defense fails to notice the error before they make a pitch, play or attempted play - an appeal is NOT a play or attempted play - only THEN does the advance of the improper batter become legal and permanently changes the subsequent batting order. Until then the whole "play" is in "limbo", just like any apparent run scored by a runner who missed a base in the process of advancing.

IMHO there is too much reliance on the false notion that an appeal for BOT is "an absolut new thing" or another "play" entirely. It isn't! An appeal is simply a request for the umpire to declare whether or not the immediately preceding play action was completed legally.

If the batter-runner's advance to 1st base was not completed legally, then neither was the forced advance of R1 - 6.07(b.2). That being the case R1 didn't "advance" on the play so he is entitled to advance on the balk penalty - 6.07(b.2)Note and 8.05 Penalty. The balk occurred during the improper batter's at bat. At that moment R1 was entitled to advance to 2nd base on the balk penalty UNLESS he already got there legally some other way. He didn't.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Warren:
I just finished a 18 hr day so I'm not sure I followed all the post from today. Are you now eliminating the out call on the BOO and replacing the batter with the current count? This would also leave R1 on second because of the balk.

[TM]

Warren,

my Post about legally ending a at bat was in a way incomplete. (lack of time)
Now a give the complete answer:

The term "legally" in legally ending a at bat has nothing to do with proper/improper batter in a BOT.
OBR 6.04 says it loud and clear.

If the batter becomes a runner, he ends his at bat legally.

Has the improper batter become a runner, when he is walked??
Of course he is now a runner, so he ends his at bat legally.
Don't get confused by the term "legally".

OBR speaks of proper/improper batter, not legal/illegal batter, and so by good reason.
Because just to avoid this mix-up.

By just reading OBR 6.04 it is very clear.

TM

[TM]

For all other readers, this is the opinion of Rick Roder in a answer he sent to JensWo, who initiated this thread:

In your play the balk has nothing to do with the improper batter; the balk is nullified because every runner and batter-runner on the play got a base (doesnt' matter if there was an improper batter). So there is no balk and the batting out of turn is enforced as it normally would be. Proper batter is called out, the improper batter removed from first and R1 must return to first.

TM

[Marc Z.]

@ TM

But it is still not clear if the question to Rick Roder was posed right.

I have sended an e-mail to Rick yesterday and explaned the problem and I also told him to take a look in this board.

I hope that i will receive an answer later.

marc

[Rick Roder]

Gentlemen,

Marc Zwikirsch and Jens Wolfhagen both have asked me to chime in on this play.

Here's the thoughts/logic behind what would be done in professional baseball (US):

Rules violations are normally dealt with in the order they occur and require enforcement.

In other words, even though the batter is improper before the balk is made, he may become proper if there is no appeal (the violation does not require immediate action).

An umpire is not required to start adding up violations and deal with the overall play in that manner. He is required to enforce each rule as it happens.

So, on this play he calls the balk. Then, upon seeing that the batter and all runners get a base, he makes a mental note that the balk is nullified. It is no longer a factor.

Then the batting out of order appeal is made. He then enforces that rule as written; proper batter out, R1 back to first.

To do it any other way confuses the situation and brings in abstract arguments of theory and practice. When in doubt in such situations: Make it easy for the umpire! (MLB Jeff Nelson's advice when I asked him about this play.)

Hope that helps everybody...I am not sure how this play would be handled in the amateur ranks, but you can be certain that in professional baseball the umpires would put R1 back at first.

Merry Christmas everybody! Rick Roder

[tornado]

OK Warren, you've told us how we're "wrong". Now YOU get to tell Rick Roder how he's wrong! This should be good!!!

Thanks to all of you for bringing baseball to a cold December in Illinois!

Happy Holidays!

[Edited by tornado on Dec 19th, 2003 at 06:56 AM]

[Jerry]

For once, FED rules make more sense! A balk creates an immediate dead ball, so you never have to worry about a following action.

Thanks, Rick, for giving a logical explanation. A lot of "would haves/could haves/should haves" if we don't follow your logic. As an example, suppose F2 fired down to 2nd base after the balk, and F4 tagged R1. Then the B/R is appealed for BOT? Why, using Warren's logic, would R1 be entitled to return to 1st?

I like Rick's reasoning.

Jerry

[greymule]

Fed may have some (deservedly) criticized rules (if the "accidental force play" still exists, that's one of them), but I think they do handle some things better than OBR. Appeals for missed/left bases, for example, in which OBR, without the dead ball appeal, has complex and difficult variations involving nullification, continuing action, etc.

To me, common sense dictates that a balk be an immediate dead ball, which of course it is in Fed. On the other hand, in Fed, if the umpire sees spit flying off the ball on its way to the plate, and the batter hits the pitch out of the park, the proper call is to nullify the home run and call an illegal pitch. That's a tough one to swallow.

[Edited by greymule on Dec 23rd, 2003 at 09:31 AM]

[mcrowder]

Accidental force play?

[Jerry]

Accidental Force Play:
If a runner misses a base and the defense inadvertenly touches that base while the play is continuing or for an apparent 4th out (e.g. an outfielder catches what looks like the 3rd out, and while enroute to the dugout he stops to brush off the base, which was previously missed by the runner), that was treated as an "appeal" under FED rules. Has more to do with any intervening runs being scored than anything else.

[greymule]

an outfielder catches what looks like the 3rd out, and while enroute to the dugout he stops to brush off the base, which was previously missed by the runner

Actually, in this case the defense would still have to appeal to the umpire. This missed base would not be a force play after the fly out, so the "accidental force play" would not apply.

Here's an example of the AFP: Abel on 1B, Baker singles to right. Abel slides safely into 3B but missed 2B. F5 nonchalantly places a tag on Abel anyway. Abel is called out on the AFP for missing 2B.

Or: Abel hits an inside-the-park home run but missed 1B. Abel scores and F2 immediately hands him the ball as a souvenir. Abel is out on the AFP, since F2 "tagged" him. (Save your breath, guys. I know the miss at 1B is not technically a force play.)

We (at least) once had a long thread about just at what point the AFP no longer is in effect. Apparently, the end of "continuing action" voids the possibility, but of course that term is not precisely defined.