A Doozy of a Rule Question

[JEAPU2000]

[/B][/QUOTE]

You got it Brian.


Ozzy nailed this one. If the improper batter gets on base, the defense must appeal before pitching to the next batter or before any (attempted) play is made. The proper batter is called out (not the B/R) and all runner advancements are nullified during the improper batter's advance to first base. [/B][/QUOTE]

Absolutely NOT. I'm not sure if that's what Ozzy was trying to say, but your comment about it is not correct. All advancements are not nullified in a BOO. Wild pitches, balks, wild pick off throws and stolen bases are allowed. As long as the action has nothing to do with the improper batter's actions, then the advance is allowed. Here, since we're talking about an R3 only situation, you have to ask yourself if the R3 is advancing because of the wild pitch, or because the batter decided to run to 1st on the dropped 3rd strike. If it wasn't a dropped third strike, and just a wild pitch on ball 2, then the run would score.

[Edited by JEAPU2000 on Aug 26th, 2005 at 01:27 PM]

[Matthew F]

Originally posted by JEAPU2000

You got it Brian.


Ozzy nailed this one. If the improper batter gets on base, the defense must appeal before pitching to the next batter or before any (attempted) play is made. The proper batter is called out (not the B/R) and all runner advancements are nullified during the improper batter's advance to first base.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely NOT. I'm not sure if that's what Ozzy was trying to say, but your comment about it is not correct. All advancements are not nullified in a BOO. Wild pitches, balks, wild pick off throws and stolen bases are allowed. As long as the action has nothing to do with the improper batter's actions, then the advance is allowed. Here, since we're talking about an R3 only situation, you have to ask yourself if the R3 is advancing because of the wild pitch, or because the batter decided to run to 1st on the dropped 3rd strike. If it wasn't a dropped third strike, and just a wild pitch on ball 2, then the run would score.

[Edited by JEAPU2000 on Aug 26th, 2005 at 01:27 PM] [/QUOTE]

Sorry to confuse you, JEAPU2000. I intentionally used paragraphing and the sentences within those paragraphs were related and supported the "topic" of the paragraph.


This paragraph dealt with the improper batter being replaced while still at bat (topic). Note that I indicated "all runner advancements stand" (supporting statement).

There is no penalty if the improper batter is replaced by the proper batter while at bat. The proper batter assumes the current count and all runner advancements stand.

The next paragraph dealt with the improper batter reaching base and subsequent BOO appeal (topic). Note that I indicated "all runner advancements are nullified" (supporting statement).

Ozzy nailed this one. If the improper batter gets on base, the defense must appeal before pitching to the next batter or before any (attempted) play is made. The proper batter is called out (not the B/R) and all runner advancements are nullified during the improper batter's advance to first base.

One thing that I did fail to mention in the last paragraph is that the B/R is also removed (as if his at bat never occured). The batter following the proper batter (who was called out) in the batting order, bats next.

[gotblue?]

Before the third strike not caught (e.g., WP with less than 2 strikes, balk, etc.), the BOO can be corrected if the offense wakes up or the defense "appeals" prematurely. Does the completion of the time at bat, and ripening of the BOO appeal (others have said batter becoming BR) provide the distinction as to whether the run would be counted or the advancements nullified?

[JEAPU2000]

Matthew....gotya. Sorry, it sounded a little strange when I read it. I guess I should read everything more closely before I open my big mouth.

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by gotblue?
Before the third strike not caught (e.g., WP with less than 2 strikes, balk, etc.), the BOO can be corrected if the offense wakes up or the defense "appeals" prematurely. Does the completion of the time at bat, and ripening of the BOO appeal (others have said batter becoming BR) provide the distinction as to whether the run would be counted or the advancements nullified?

gotblue,


6.07(a)(1) Provides for the improper batter to be replaced by the proper batter at any time prior to the improper batter completing his time at bat, and assume the existing count. If R3 scores before the completion of the at bat by the improper batter, the run scores.

6.07(a)(2) Provides for the run to be nullified if the improper batter has completed his time at bat AND in doing so becomes a BR, AND is properly apealed. If the appeal is upheld for the third out, no run may score.


Tim.

[gotblue?]

I guess that is what my instinct was telling me. In addition, I read some of the previous responses more carefully. I am left wondering why there would be a controversy/dispute as to whether the run would or would not have been scored in the example given initially.

[UMP25]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Randy --

I agree with those that do NOT score the run. Change the play a little: Dropped third strike, but F2 blocks the ball. R3 does not advance, but F2 throws the ball wildly to RF attempting to retire BR. Now R3 comes home, and then the BOO is appealed. I think it's "more clear" here that the advance was due to the actions of the improper batter, and I think that the ruling in the original case has to be the same.

Bob,

I had been leaning this way even after giving much thought to what has been discussed here and among several of my peers not related to this esteemed board. I do believe that the arguments for scoring a run do tend to have some legitimacy to them, which isn't often the case in sticky rule situations.

If I use a "common sense and fair play" approach, then I'd be saying do not count the run because R3 scored on a play involving the final out being the result of a batter to legally reach first base. Perhaps I'll just leave it at that before someone tries to convince me with an otherwise logical counterpoint.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by gotblue?
I guess that is what my instinct was telling me. In addition, I read some of the previous responses more carefully. I am left wondering why there would be a controversy/dispute as to whether the run would or would not have been scored in the example given initially.

The rule says "nullify any advance or score made ... because of the improper batter's advance to first base on ... or otherwise."

Yes, the improper batter advanced to first. But, was R3's advance to home *because* BR advanced to first? Or was it just *coincidental* to BR's advance to first (R3 advanced *because* of the wild pitch, not because B1 became BR). That's the controversy.

I think the NOTE at the end of 6.07(b) makes it clear -- if the advance is *during* the (illegal) at bat, it stands. In the play presented, the advance was after the at-bat (B1 had become BR -- see 6.04), so the runner must return (or, since this was the third out, the run is cancelled).

FED 7-1-2b seems to be better written, and more clear -- I think this particular ruling is one where FED and OBR agree.

[JEAPU2000]

[/QUOTE]
Yes, the improper batter advanced to first. But, was R3's advance to home *because* BR advanced to first? Or was it just *coincidental* to BR's advance to first (R3 advanced *because* of the wild pitch, not because B1 became BR). That's the controversy.

I think the NOTE at the end of 6.07(b) makes it clear -- if the advance is *during* the (illegal) at bat, it stands. In the play presented, the advance was after the at-bat (B1 had become BR -- see 6.04), so the runner must return (or, since this was the third out, the run is cancelled).

FED 7-1-2b seems to be better written, and more clear -- I think this particular ruling is one where FED and OBR agree.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Bob, had there been only 1 out, the run would score, regardless of when the at bat ended. The runner's advance had nothing to do with the improper batter's actions (hit, walk, HBP, etc.) The controversy is which rule to apply -- no run since BR doesn't reach first, or score the run because the advances of this type in BOO situations are allowed.

[UMP25]

So then what's the ruling, JEAP? What would you do and why? That's the $64,000 question.

[rickfriedmann]

I'm confused how anyone can say the advance was not due to the actions of the incorrect batter. Even though the original post said "wild pitch" it wasn't because a strike cannot be a wild pitch. So, we have a simple uncaught third strike situation with the advance to first being no different than if the batter walked, got a hit, or reached on an error. OBR 6.07
The batter became a B/R the instant he struck out OLB 6.09 and, if that was before the runner on third crossed the plate, B/R's out at first for BOO was the third out, he never officially reached first, so no runs can score.
If I'm off on this, please tell me where and cite the rule for me.
Thanks.

[mcrowder]

Wow. So much incorrect there. I'll only state the obvious one. "There can be no wild pitch on a strike." Complete and utter nonsense, no offense. There can be, and often is. Strike two bounces past the catcher, and R1 goes to 2nd. Wild pitch. Or a swinging strike three bounces past the catcher - K/WP allowing batter to reach.

Throw me in the camp that scores this run. Here's my logic.

Move the runner from 3rd to 2nd, and change the number of outs to 1. Same rules are in play, by the way, but this is to clarify.

Sitch 1 - Improper batter singles, R2 moves to 3rd or scores. Defense appeals - proper batter is out, AND YOU MOVE THE RUNNER BACK TO SECOND. So if the single scored a run, you're erasing the run on the appeal of BOO.

Sitch 2 - Improper batter strikes out, ball gets away, R2 moves to 3rd, batter reaches 1st. Defense appeals. Batter is out, and you do NOT move the runner back to second. Why? Because the advance was not CAUSED by batter reaching first - it was caused by the passed ball. There is NO difference between the logic of this situation and the logic of the initial post. The run did NOT score BECAUSE of the actions of the improper batter - it scored because of the wild pitch.

[largeone59]

Originally posted by mcrowder

Sitch 2 - Improper batter strikes out, ball gets away, R2 moves to 3rd, batter reaches 1st. Defense appeals. Batter is out, and you do NOT move the runner back to second. Why? Because the advance was not CAUSED by batter reaching first - it was caused by the passed ball. There is NO difference between the logic of this situation and the logic of the initial post. The run did NOT score BECAUSE of the actions of the improper batter - it scored because of the wild pitch.

Yes, this is true. However this thread's big deal is whether or not to score the run because of the BOO being the third out on the batter, hence no runs can score if the BR is put out before reaching first.