illegal substitue.

[Gre144]

An illegal substitute bats and gets on base. The next batter gets up and hits a single. The defesive coach appeals batting out of order on the batter who followed the illegal substitute. I guess my question is who would be the batter that should legally follow the illegal substitute? (I would imagine that it would be the person who follows in the line up the person that the illegal substitute substituted for. Am I right?)

Fed rules

[Carl Childress]

Gre144:

In any batting out of order scenario, even one complicated by the FED illegal substitute regulations, the umpire needs to consider only the last two batters.

Let's assume the traditional batting order: Able, Baker, Charles, Daniel, Edward, etc.

Able should bat but illegal substitute Johnson pinch hits and walks. Now Baker is up, but Charles comes to bat and singles. The defense now appeals that Charles is improper. The umpire agrees and is faced with a typical BOO problem.

1. Baker should have batted but didn't. He's out.

2. Johnson advanced to second on the single. He returns to first.
3. Charles is on base improperly. He's removed.
4. The proper batter is now -- Charles.

Concerning Johnson:

Apparently no one has yet appealed that he is an illegal sub. When that is discovered, he is out and ejected from the game.

Two consecutive batters, two consecutive infractions.

Amazing!

If I were the A.D. of that school, I would sit down and have a heart-to-heart with my coach.

Papa C

[Gre144]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Gre144:

In any batting out of order scenario, even one complicated by the FED illegal substitute regulations, the umpire needs to consider only the last two batters.

Let's assume the traditional batting order: Able, Baker, Charles, Daniel, Edward, etc.

Able should bat but illegal substitute Johnson pinch hits and walks. Now Baker is up, but Charles comes to bat and singles. The defense now appeals that Charles is improper. The umpire agrees and is faced with a typical BOO problem.

1. Baker should have batted but didn't. He's out.

2. Johnson advanced to second on the single. He returns to first.
3. Charles is on base improperly. He's removed.
4. The proper batter is now -- Charles.

Concerning Johnson:

Apparently no one has yet appealed that he is an illegal sub. When that is discovered, he is out and ejected from the game.

Two consecutive batters, two consecutive infractions.

Amazing!

If I were the A.D. of that school, I would sit down and have a heart-to-heart with my coach.

Papa C

Shouldn't Baker be the next batter since he follows the now proper batter Abel/Johnson? Abel/Johnson became the proper batter batter after the hit by Charles. If I am incorrect, could you please tell me why Charles is the proper batter?

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gre144

Shouldn't Baker be the next batter since he follows the now proper batter Abel/Johnson? Abel/Johnson became the proper batter batter after the hit by Charles. If I am incorrect, could you please tell me why Charles is the proper batter?

---

Greg:

The illegal substitute is out as per 3-1-1, not because he batted out of order. He batted in the proper spot; HE was improper, not his order of hitting.

The batter who follows Able is Baker, but he didn't hit: Charles did. That made Charles the improper batter, and when an improper batter is appealed properly (grin), the PROPER batter (in this case Baker) is out.

Able has been removed from the game once, as you will see from the final sentence of 3-1-1.

I hope I have made this clear now. If not, email me privately, please.