Though I hate to "taint" his conclusions by the support of a mere coach, I am squarely with Tim (BigUmp56) in his assertions on the question - though my train of thought is slightly different.

Rather than saying the improper batter's touch of 1B was "illegal" and the third out of the inning, I would say that, upon proper appeal, the proper batter became the 3rd out of the inning, and he definitely never touched 1B.

Since (I assume) we would all agree that if the improper batter had hit a single, the run would be nullified upon a proper BOOT appeal; and that we would further agree that if a proper batter had been called out on appeal for missing 1B for the 3rd out of the inning, no run would score; then I can see no support for suggesting that the run would score in the sitch posed by UMP25 in the initial post of this thread.

Further, (and I think I'm still on the same page with Tim here) I would further assert that the R3 would not score if the BOOT appeal out were only the 1st or 2nd out of the half inning rather than the 3rd out.

The rule says:
As Tim correctly points out, the R3 advanced after the improper batter had completed his at bat, not "...while the improper batter (was) at bat."

This reading is entirely consistent with the wording and intent of the rule. Namely, it is not illegal (i.e. there is no penalty) for sending an "out of turn" batter to the plate. It is illegal for an out of turn batter to complete an "at bat" - if the defense appeals.

JM

And you call yourself a coach.:D

I humbly bow to the superior knowledge of others on this one.http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_32v.gif

Steve,

Of course when I say it, I don't mean it in a bad way. ;)

JM

This is the only part of what you said that I would disagree with. If R3 scores on a passed ball and is NOT forced home, he is not scoring BECAUSE of the improper batter's time at bat, but rather because of the passed ball. But I also acknowledge that the various powers that be differ in their opinions of the handling of this sitch.

mcrowder,

I would agree that well-informed and intelligent people can and have come to opposite conclusions on this particular question (i.e. whether a non-forced R3 scoring on a wild pitch ball four to an improper batter which is subsequently appealed with less than 2 out is allowed to score or returned to 3B).

The interpretation that says all action on the play where the improper batter completes his at bat is nullifed and superceded by the out on the proper batter makes the most sense to me, and, in my opinion, is most consistent with the text and spirit of the rule.

The key things that make me think this are:

1. The phrase "...while the improper batter is at bat..." in the part of the rule that says which advances are allowed/legal.

2. The use of the phrase "...or otherwise..." in describing what advances are not allowed. And the fact that the rule explicitly disallows advances that result from "misplays" by the defense ("...an error...") on plays where the batter becomes a runner.

3. The general principle behind the rules that the team engaging in illegal activity cannot benefit from doing so.

4. The "slipperiness" of the notion of causality. Where does it begin, where does it end? Was the wild pitch "caused" by the improper batter standing too close to the plate, or not? Was the fielding error that allowed the batter to reach 1B safely and the R3 to score "caused" by the batter, or not. Where do you draw the end of the line on the "chain of causality"?

I do not believe there is an unambiguous, authoritative ruling that supports either my position or the opposite. And there is enough ambiguity that either could be correct.

I like the NCAA wording much better:

JM

Run scores. The improper batter did nothing to advance the runner, he did not hit the ball and he did not force the runner to advance by virtue of his base on balls. His actions had nothing to do with the runner scoring on a passed ball. He was not forced home with bases loaded, he was the only base runner. Defense erred by catcher not catching the ball.

I don't care who you are, that's funny ! LMFAO !

Did you even read 7-1-1 (d)? The batter doesn't even become a runner in this case play, let alone reach first base.

7.1.1 SITUATION D: With R1 on third and two outs, improper batter, B5., appears at bat. During F1's windup, R1 breaks for home base and beats the pitch there, and is called safe by the umpire. The pitch is not strike three or ball four. The team in the field then realizes that B5 is an improper batter and calls it to the attention of the umpire.

Ruling: The proper batter shall take his place at the plate with B5's accumulated ball and strike count. The run scored by R1 counts. The activity of improper batter B5 did not assist nor advance R1. The advance was made on merit. Of course, if the pitch to improper batter B5 had been strike three and the catcher either caught the ball or threw out B5 before he reached first base, then R1's run would not count.

You must have missed the case play that closely addresses this.

7.2.1 SITUATION C: B5 is batting instead of the proper batter, B4. The count is (a) 2-2 or (b) 1-1 and two outs. R7 is on third. On the pitch, B5 swings and misses, but F2 cannot come up with the ball. In (a), B5 reaches first base safely and in (a) and (b) R1 scores. Batting out of order is then appealed by the defense.

Ruling: In (a), B4 is declared out and since the third out was made by the batter runner, who technically did not reach first base, R1's run does not count. In (b), R1's run counts. B4 would simply replace B5 and assume B5's ball-and-strike count.



Tim.

Oh my.....SDS agrees with PWL. :eek: Isn't that one of the
signs of the apocalypse ?????

Did they? I don't even remember if I Emailed any of my friends in MLB. :confused:

OK, now that my evil attempt to sow discord, discontent, and division has been successful (don't underestimate the Power of the Dark Side), here is THE official ruling on this play:

No run.

Pursuant to OBR 4.09(a)(1) and NCAA 5-6-c(1).

Many thanks to my friend Rick Roder for confirming this before I stated it here. Now that I've got half my own association swearing revenge on me for this one, I think it's time to wrap up this specific one.

I KNEW there was a reason I rubbed the nose of my life-size Darth Vader everytime I left in the morning. :D

Your friend Rick contradicts himself, "A runner who advanced for some other reason (wild pickoff throw overthrow, wild pitch, balk) is allowed his advance. 6.07b2".

Your reference to 4.09(a)(1) and 5-6-c(1) would require the coach to come running out of the dugout to appeal the BOO while the catcher is retrieving the pass ball and before the B-R reaches 1B.

No it wouldn't. BTW, the Rick to whom I refer is Rick Roder of the Jaksa/Roder manual. You're making the error of thinking of this as some sort of time play. When it comes down to it, it is an advance that occurred on a play involving a batter not reaching first base for the final out.

No run.

For a related thread, see "OBR BOO Nightmare" from March 6. It's on page 12 at the moment, so you may have to adjust your settings to go back that far. Several different variations were discussed.