illegal substitute

[dpomeroy]

I posted this back on 6/15/04 about a play where with bases
loaded in a tie game, 1 out, bottom of 7, the home team pinch runs for R1. The defense notices that Bubba the pinch runner had pinch hit earlier in the game and withdrew so was an illegal substitute. They waited...hoping to turn
a double play knowing they had a sure out in their back
pocket. The visiting pitcher plunks the batter on 1-1, the home
team celebrates what appears to be victory. Now the defensive
coach points out illegal Bubba. The blues
properly call him out, eject him to the dugout only,
return R3 & R2 to their original bases and send batter
runner to first...now 2 outs. Correct I think per 3.1.1
but now several weeks later I'm hearing rumblings that
this appeal was too late. That the batter at home was the
"NEXT" batter and after 1 pitch was thrown to him it is too
late. Carl alludes to this in 473 in the 2004 BRD and says
we rule just like 468 which means the blues were right.
Tell me these "rumblings" are wrong and are reading too much
into 3.1.1. I know all fault goes to the blues for ever letting Bubba get out to first base as a pinch runner to begin with...but I can't believe this "next" batter crap.
Help!!

[DG]

Originally posted by dpomeroy
I posted this back on 6/15/04 about a play where with bases
loaded in a tie game, 1 out, bottom of 7, the home team pinch runs for R1. The defense notices that Bubba the pinch runner had pinch hit earlier in the game and withdrew so was an illegal substitute. They waited...hoping to turn
a double play knowing they had a sure out in their back
pocket. The visiting pitcher plunks the batter on 1-1, the home
team celebrates what appears to be victory. Now the defensive
coach points out illegal Bubba. The blues
properly call him out, eject him to the dugout only,
return R3 & R2 to their original bases and send batter
runner to first...now 2 outs. Correct I think per 3.1.1
but now several weeks later I'm hearing rumblings that
this appeal was too late. That the batter at home was the
"NEXT" batter and after 1 pitch was thrown to him it is too
late. Carl alludes to this in 473 in the 2004 BRD and says
we rule just like 468 which means the blues were right.
Tell me these "rumblings" are wrong and are reading too much
into 3.1.1. I know all fault goes to the blues for ever letting Bubba get out to first base as a pinch runner to begin with...but I can't believe this "next" batter crap.
Help!!

Wow, what a situation. You don't say what rules you are playing under, and it does matter. Since you reference 3.1.1 and mention restricting a player to dugout, I assume FED rules. You also did not say that a pitch was thrown to the next batter, the defensive coach brings up the illegal player when the batter is HBP. Under FED, I believe the ruling is correct, BR to 1B, R1 out and restricted to bench, and other runners return to 2B and 3B. In OBR (see 468 in OBR), the illegal sub is ejected, but no out is called, so he could be replaced by another substitute runner, and thus the HBP wins the game.

Now let me give you a mind bender. What if batter hits a home run in this situation, with illegal player running at 1B. What's your call, in FED? In OBR it's a walk off home run.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DG
Now let me give you a mind bender. What if batter hits a home run in this situation, with illegal player running at 1B. What's your call, in FED? In OBR it's a walk off home run.

S1 is out (and restricted to the dugout), the home-run is nullified. See 3.1.1G

On the original play, the "next batter" is the batter *after* the advance. But, the HPB should have been ignored. Put R2 and R3 back, and let B4 bat again (with the count before the HBP).

[dpomeroy]

Yes I'm talking Fed rules only here. Your homerun scenario
I would rule the same way because 3.1.1 says all runners
return to bases occupied at TOP. I'd put the home run hitter on first, return R3 & R2 and call Bubba out. Bases
juiced 2 gone. My big concern here is the timing of the
appeal by the defense...the semantics of the "NEXT BATTER"
in terms of discovery. I think the BRD says in 473 you
treat the illegal runner the same way as the illegal batter
but those rumblings I refer to came from a state office
suggesting the appeal/discovery was too late. That the
HBP batter or in your case the HR hitter WAS the next batter
so a pitch was thrown...now it is too late. Carl or someone
get on here and HELP!!!