batting out of order

[smoump]

Here we go again, I wish to double check my understanding of this rule.

Example: Batter 1 comes to plate and gets a single. B2 makes an out. Now, instead of B3 coming to the plate, B4 steps into the box. B4 gets a single and B1(R1) advances to third. B3 now comes to the plate and steps into box (live ball).

Situation A) before first pitch to B3, defensive team requests time and brings the problem to the attention of the PU. Solution: B3 is ruled out, B4 is brought back to plate, and B1(R1) is returned to first. B5 will be the next batter. Correct?

Situation B) defensive team brings it to the attention of PU after a pitch was delivered to B3. Solution: B3 is replaced with B5 and assumes B3's count. B4 stays at first and B1 stays at third. Correct?

[largeone59]

A) Correct.

B) Correct.

[mcrowder]

Mostly correct... possibly completely correct.

In B... We really have two separate violations now.

If the manager comes out, and points at B4 on first base, saying that he shouldn't have batted, I believe our answer is just "sorry, coach, once a pitch has been thrown, he (pointing at B4) has been legitimized."

If he says ANYTHING about the current batter, either before or after this comment, we must correct that BOO as well.

But if he says nothing about B3 at all, I don't believe we have either the requirement or the right to fix that eventual BOO. I know there are words in the book regarding doing what we can to prevent protestable situations, but I don't believe this falls in there. I'm sure there are those who might legitimately feel that sending B3 back to the dugout in favor of B5 is preventative umpiring, but I don't think I'm one of those umpires. To my mind, if the rulesmakers wanted umpires to prevent BOO, we would be required to do so without it being brought to our attention. Since we don't do it without appeal, and technically this appeal was (or could have been) about B4 only, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to address it yet.

[largeone59]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Mostly correct... possibly completely correct.

In B... We really have two separate violations now.

If the manager comes out, and points at B4 on first base, saying that he shouldn't have batted, I believe our answer is just "sorry, coach, once a pitch has been thrown, he (pointing at B4) has been legitimized."

If he says ANYTHING about the current batter, either before or after this comment, we must correct that BOO as well.

But if he says nothing about B3 at all, I don't believe we have either the requirement or the right to fix that eventual BOO. I know there are words in the book regarding doing what we can to prevent protestable situations, but I don't believe this falls in there. I'm sure there are those who might legitimately feel that sending B3 back to the dugout in favor of B5 is preventative umpiring, but I don't think I'm one of those umpires. To my mind, if the rulesmakers wanted umpires to prevent BOO, we would be required to do so without it being brought to our attention. Since we don't do it without appeal, and technically this appeal was (or could have been) about B4 only, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to address it yet.

I think we should just correct the whole mess when it's brought to our attention. JMHO

[smoump]

in situation B, if we do not replace B3 and B4 is on first, then who bats next? We cannot allow B3 to complete his time at bat and then allow B5 to bat, can we??

[MrB]

That is exactly what we do.

This is from NCAA, but OBR is the same as is FED

"If the defensive team has ignored an improper batter who now is on base when the “official” turn at bat arrives, the individual shall be passed over and the next person in the lineup shall be the proper batter."

[MrB]

Originally posted by largeone59

I think we should just correct the whole mess when it's brought to our attention. JMHO

This is from NCAA book

"A.R.—The umpires, official scorer or public-address announcer shall not call attention to the improper batter. If this occurs, the umpire-in-chief shall warn the official scorer and/or the public-address announcer that on the next infraction the offending person will be removed from the position."

Leave it alone unless he asks.

[smoump]

Originally posted by MrB
That is exactly what we do.

This is from NCAA, but OBR is the same as is FED

"If the defensive team has ignored an improper batter who now is on base when the “official” turn at bat arrives, the individual shall be passed over and the next person in the lineup shall be the proper batter."

FED 7-2-5

"When an improper batter becomes a proper batter because no appeal is properly made as above, the next batter shall be the batter whose name follows that of such legalized improper batter. The instant an improper batter's actions are legalized, the batting order picks up with the name following that of the legalized improper batter".

When the appeal was not made this legalized B4 at first. This is why B5 needs to be at the plate, not B3.

[mcrowder]

Well, you completely missed his point.

WE do not bring the BOO (B3) to anyone's attention. If it IS brought to our attention, B5 is the proper batter... but his point was in response to your statement that "We cannot allow B3 to complete his time at bat" - yes we do, unless the BOO (B3's BOO, not B4's) is brought to our attention.

[smoump]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Well, you completely missed his point.

WE do not bring the BOO (B3) to anyone's attention. If it IS brought to our attention, B5 is the proper batter... but his point was in response to your statement that "We cannot allow B3 to complete his time at bat" - yes we do, unless the BOO (B3's BOO, not B4's) is brought to our attention.

I understand that if an appeal is not made we do nothing, but if an appeal is made even after the first pitch to the next batter, we don't replace B3 unless coach states that B5 should be the next batter? We then allow B3 to bat and the next batter to be B5? I am sorry but I feel uncomfortable with this. Say B3 completes his time at bat, then coach says B5 cannot be the next batter, it should be B4 who is on base. I then say ..... Why put yourself in that position?

It seems to me that you make the correction whether or not the coach says anything about B3. This eliminates any future problems when B5 comes to the plate.

Now, I again may be missing your point (would not be the first time). Preventive umpiring or whatever it might be called, replacing B3 with B5 after an improper appeal is the spirit of the rule as I understand it. What difference does it make to me who is at bat, B3 or B5.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by smoump

I understand that if an appeal is not made we do nothing, but if an appeal is made even after the first pitch to the next batter, we don't replace B3 unless coach states that B5 should be the next batter? We then allow B3 to bat and the next batter to be B5? I am sorry but I feel uncomfortable with this. Say B3 completes his time at bat, then coach says B5 cannot be the next batter, it should be B4 who is on base. I then say ..... Why put yourself in that position?

The coach is appealing B4. Rule on that. Period. Don't rule on B3 until the coach "appeals" that. It's to the defenses benefit to have B3 batting out of order. Don't take that away from them until they ask you to (by pointing it out).

And, yes, once B3 finishes his at-bat, B5 is the next batter, if B4 is on base.