A Doozy of a Rule Question

[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.