I have a little Rules-Question about a situation, we are dicussing with a lot of german umpires actually in our Umpire-Bboard.

Situation:
R1, Count 3:2, less than 2 out.

1. we have a balk call followed by a pitch
2. Ball 4: BR --> 1st, R1 -->2nd [8.05 Penalty no reference to the balk any more)
3. Appeal at 1st base against BR is enforced because of BOT 6.07 (b) + (a)1

What's your Call?

Are we now having conflicting rules? What happens with R1?

What is your opinion? I couldn't find anything in J/R-Manual/ Evans - ABR/ Childress - BRD

Best christmas wishes from Germany

Jens Wolfhagen

Unless there's some unusual wrinkle that I don't know about, the appeal for BOT (or BOO) stands, and the balk call is irrelevant, washed away with the play.

I know what you're thinking—that the BR didn't actually make it to 1B since whoever was supposed to bat was called out. Still, the out for failing to bat in the proper order would stand. In fact, it was the guy who failed to bat who is out, not the BR. But even if the BR had been called out for missing 1B after, let's say, hitting a triple after the balk call he would be considered to have reached 1B for the purposes of the balk rule.

This is OBR only. In Fed, the balk call kills the play right away. I'm not sure about NCAA.

I agree with greymule and would only add that you cannot have an OUT with the BOT <i>unless</i> the improper batter <u>completes</u> the proper batter's turn at bat. Therefore the effect of the base on balls MUST be dealt with first under the rules (ie balk penalty ignored) or the BOT can't happen.

Ignore the balk on the forced walk.

Bad batter out without a doubt.

<i>{Yeah, I know, but I couldn't resist :D}</i>

Since the improper batter completed his time at bat the appeal is honored. Anything that resulted from the actions of the improper batters are null and void. Proper batter is out Balk is null and void and R1 returns to first. G.

[Edited by Gee on Dec 13th, 2003 at 06:17 PM]

You are correct, George - R1 is normally returned to 1st base under OBR 6.07(b.2).

In this case, however, R1 could be considered to have advanced either by the balk - <i>first</i> defensive error - or the base on balls - <i>second</i> defensive error.

I would apply OBR 6.07(b.2) if there had been NO BALK, but since there <i>was</i> a balk I'd let R1 keep the advance. They can't have it both ways. See the Note following OBR 6.07(b.2) for my justification.

You cannot NULLIFY the balk AND give the defense a return to R1 with an appeal out when THEY are the ones who have committed <b>2</b> errors to the offense's <b>1</b> error.

Cheers

Warren:
Isn't you that is getting two bites from the apple?
You are saying the runner stays because of the balk. If the BR advances forcing the runner ahead then the balk is ignorred.8.05 penalty
The only way your arguement works is if it was earlier in the count.

I don't understand that one, Warren. The way I see it, with the base on balls causing the advance of R1 to 2B and BR to 1B, the balk is wiped away. It didn't happen. The advance of R1 to 2B is a legal advance caused by the walk, not the balk. Now, with BR on 1B having completed his at-bat, the appeal is a separate, later event.

If we follow the logic that way, greymule, then when the appeal is upheld R1 should be returned to 1st base under 6.07(b.2). Net effect is Defensive Errors=2, Offensive Errors=1 and Defense <i>profits</i> with 1 out AND R1 returned to 1st base. That's the way the appeal rule is written.

By my logic EITHER R1 makes it to 2nd on the walk - appeal for BOT denied, balk ignored - OR R1 makes it to 2nd on the balk - appeal for BOT upheld, balk enforced [see Note following 6.07(b.2)]. According to 8.05 Penalty the balk is ignored only if BOTH the batter and R1 advance on the play. The batter did NOT advance on the play, being called out on appeal for allowing an improper batter to complete his turn at bat. Enforce the balk.

The point is that the BOT appeal under 6.07(a) is still a part of the action that results from the base on balls. Until that appeal is either denied or upheld you can't declare that all runners advanced on the play. That is not the same as a missed base appeal at 1st, where the batter-runner is considered to have advanced for the purpose of the rule. In that case the balance is Defensive errors=1(the balk) and Offensive errors=2 (missed base AND BOT). The balance is rightly with the offense in that case.

I try to enforce the rules in a way that ensures neither side gains an advantage not intended under the rules. I don't think the rule makers intended for the defense to commit two errors and gain an out with no advance as the result.

Hope this helps

Cheers

Yes, I believe the offense is entitled to "<i>two bites from the apple</i>" because the defense committed two errors - a balk and a base on balls.

Take the balk out of the equation:

Under 6.07(b.2) when the appeal is upheld R1 should be returned to 1st base - George's ruling.

Take the batting out of turn out of the equation:

Under 8.05 Penalty, all runners advanced on the play and R1 remains at 2nd base.

Put them together and Gee wants BOTH the balk ignored AND R1 returned even though the defense committed 2 errors to the offense's 1! That's an advantage not intended under the rules IMHO. See my reply to greymule for the logic.

Hope this helps

Cheers.

Really LOOPY!
 

Nope ... "WHOOOPS!" :D

I couldn't fix the problem from my end. You'll have to delete the "<"img">" tag from your original messages to stop us all from looping indefinitely to a blank page.

Cheers

I've deleted the offending post.

Thanks, Bob.

Cheers

I think I see your point, Warren, that the batter did not actually advance to 1B on the base on balls because his at bat disappeared with the out on his teammate who failed to bat. You're considering it all part of the same play.

But to me, BR <i>did</i> advance, and that play ends and another (the appeal) begins. I don't see adding up total mistakes to see which side has the edge. You can make 5 mistakes, and other side can make 1 mistake that gets you off the hook for all 5. Give me some time and I'll think of the play.

It's a good theoretical question, though. I'm surprised more people haven't chipped in. Maybe the crazy popup problem chased them off.

Only the improper batter-runner advanced, greymule. His at bat, <i>and</i> the advance it engendered, was illegal or the appeal would have been denied. That's also why R1 gets returned to 1st base, absent the balk - see 6.07(b.2). Using the balance of errors is only a shorthand way of explaining the logic.

It's a much tougher question than it first appears on the surface. I think you're probably right about the looping problem scaring off other posters. I hope they give the thread a second shot.

Cheers

OK, using your logic answer what happened to the BR. Did he get called out for advancing on the walk and batting improperly? If so then the runner must return.
If you are saying enforce the balk then the batter is still at bat. Therefore, the batter is simply switched. You can't have it both ways.