I thought decades ago that I knew OBR BOO cold, but last night I awoke from a nightmare in which this play occurred and I wasn't sure how to rule:

Abel on 3B, Baker on 2B, Charles on 1B, no outs. Daniels is supposed to bat, but Edwards bats instead.

Ball 4 to Edwards is in the dirt, kicks off F2's shinguard, and bounces into the dugout. Edwards advances to 1B on ball 4, and the runners move up a base.

The appeal by the defense that Daniels failed to bat in the proper order is upheld.

OK. Daniels is out, Edwards is taken off 1B to bat again.

But are the advances by Abel, Baker, and Charles legal? In other words, do we interpret those advances as being a result of Edwards' advance to 1B, or are they a result of the award for the pitch going into DBT?

I keep thinking that this must be simple and that I'm missing something obvious, but it took me a long time to get back to sleep last night.

only my opinion .........................
 

All runners stay on the bases they were on at the time of the pitch, Daniels is out and Edwards is at the plate.

But, of course, I could be wrong !!!


Doug

My take
 

If the pitch ricocheted out of play into dead-ball territory, runners are awarded bases regardless of whether or not they were forced to advance by ball four to the improper batter. Therefore, the improper batter did not cause these runners to move up. For this reason, I think the runners' advances are there to stay regardless of the successful BOO appeal.

Then again, I could be wrong. :)

Re: My take
 

I believe you are correct. 6.07b2. Had it been a straight walk the runners would return, but since the ball went out of play this was not as a result of the batter's actions.

My difficulty is in understanding the precise meaning of "because of the improper batter's advance to 1B." Obviously, this covers runners who were forced to advance because the improper batter, for example, received a base on balls. Send those runners back.

But in the play I posted, you could argue it either way (I guess).

Suppose with no outs and Abel on 2B, Charles bats instead of Baker. On ball 4 to Charles, Abel steals 3B. After a proper appeal, I would leave Abel on 3B, since he did not advance as a result of a batted ball or Charles's advance to 1B. He simply stole 3B.

But how about this?:

Abel on 3B, no outs. Charles bats instead of Baker and takes ball 4. Charles proceeds to 1B but continues on to 2B. The defense plays on Charles and Abel scores. The defense then appeals the BOO. (Whether or not Charles was put out is irrelevant.) Would you allow Abel's run to score? In other words, was Abel's advance "as a result of Charles's advance to 1B," or simply an event that occurred along with it? I think I'd go with the former and send Abel back to 3B, but I admit I'm not sure.

I'll agree with you on this. Charles advancing to first didn't force Abel to advance.


Personally, i'd let the play stand since Abel's advance was not caused by Charles either batting the ball, or advancing to first base (and subsequently forcing the runners to advance). JMHO though.

Batting out of order:
The first thing that happened was the inproper batter.

That was appealed before the next pitch or play.
Penalty is improper batter out, all runners returned.

The offense is not allowed to gain an advatage in a play the improper batter is involved.

Return runner to TOP, the dead ball ... never happened.

<b>Penalty is improper batter out, all runners returned.

The offense is not allowed to gain an advatage in a play the improper batter is involved.</b>

I don't see this in my MLB rule book. But it's a 2001 book. Where is it in yours?

Abel scores, his advance is not as a result of Charles advance to 1B but due to advance to 2B and defense's inability to stop Abel from scoring while they are playing on Charles. BOO appeal is allowed after the play, unless Charles advance to 2B was after continuous action was over, in which case the defense loses their right to appeal because they made a play after continuous action was over. In your example it sounded like he never stopped at 1B but just kept going so continous action is not over.

When an improper batter is properly appealed, the proper batter is out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch, regardless of whether the advance was on its merits or because of the actions of the improper batter.

If you mean that runners advanced as a result of the improper batter hitting the ball or being forced to advance due to a walk then I agree with you. If, however, runners advance not due to any of the batter's actions then I don't. Example, wild pitch on ball four, R2 advances to 3B. After play is over the batter is out on BOO appeal and R2 stays at 3B.

<b>In your example it sounded like he never stopped at 1B but just kept going so continous action is not over.</b>

Yes, definitely continuous action.

From the J/R:

In the bottom of the seventh there are no outs, Adams is at first, and Leo is due to bat. However King steps into the box. A pitch is ball four and goes wild past the catcher. The catcher retrieves the ball and throws to the first baseman for an unsuccessful play on the Batter-Runner (King) who rounded first base. The defense appeals that the offense has batted out of order:

1) The catchers throw was a part of the continuous action, and should not be interpreted as a post-continuous action play and the appeal can be sustained. The proper batter (Leo) is out. King is removed from first base. The umpire must decide whether Adams’ advance was due to King’s award or due to the wildness of the pitch (i.e., would Adams have advanced if the pitch had been ball three?). Adams is allowed to remain at second base with one out and Cooper is the proper batter.


Tim.

Thanks, BigUmp56. The ump allows the run because it would have scored anyway on the wild pitch. That pretty much answers the question regarding the play in my original post. I'll go and read that entire section in the J/R.

It still doesn't answer directly the question of what happens when Charles walks and tries for 2B and Abel scores on the throw. It's not quite parallel to the play in the J/R. After all, we can't say that Abel would have scored without the play on the improper batter. If I had to choose, I'd say allow the play to stand, but that's a guess. Maybe I'll find it in the J/R.

If a sitch gets confusing, ask yourself if the same advances would/could have occured had the pitch been ball 3. In the OP, yes, they would been awarded a base on the pitch out of play, not just the BB. In the 2nd sitch, yes, Able would have stolen 3B on the pitch just as easily on ball 3 as on ball 4. In the 3rd, though, the play made on Charles was the reason Able advanced - put Able back on 3rd.

For some reason people are saying it's only Charles's advance to 1st that matters. Not true. Are you allowing runners to advance on a Ground Rule Double by Charles? No, of course not. It's ANY runners that advance due to the actions of Charles.