A Doozy of a Rule Question

[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.