Do you count the run?

[UMP25]

If it's on page 12 right now, I'll just let sleeping dogs lie.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by umpduck11

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

Before you head to the bomb shelter Duck, I am on record as recanting this statement. I now believe that the run does not count.

It's all so confusing, can someone PLEASE HELP!!! Oh, the humanity.......

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Before you head to the bomb shelter Duck, I am on record as recanting this statement. I now believe that the run does not count.

It's all so confusing, can someone PLEASE HELP!!! Oh, the humanity.......

Ju should hab trusted Queesdraw when heem toll you da truth!


Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Ju should hab trusted Queesdraw when heem toll you da truth!


Tim.

Buh Queesdraw, ju deent geeve da correct reason why.

This is the first response which gave the correct reasoning for not allowing the run to score:

Originally Posted by mccrowder

We have some really smart people saying some really dumb things.

Why does it keep coming up that the improper batter was put out at all (much less the mentions of when). The improper batter was not put out at all!!! The PROPER batter was called out on appeal for the 3rd out BEFORE HE REACHED FIRST BASE (heck... before he reached the batters box!). How much more crystal could this be. The confusion above stems solely from the fact that you guys are calling the wrong player out.

All other citings, interpretations and speculation only contributed to the confusion. The proper batter was called out on appeal, not the batter that reached 1st base, so now it is crystal-clear.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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.

So, what's the ruling when the BOO is NOT the third out? Does R3 socre, or is R3 returned? (or, is that what was covered on page 12?)

[jxt127]

If the BOO is not the 3rd out you must determine if the run would have scored had the Batter not become a batter-runner.

[DG]

Originally Posted by jxt127

If the BOO is not the 3rd out you must determine if the run would have scored had the Batter not become a batter-runner.

How funny. Under what condition would you judge that the runner would not have scored on a passed ball, had the improper batter not walked on ball 4?

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

So, what's the ruling when the BOO is NOT the third out? Does R3 socre, or is R3 returned? (or, is that what was covered on page 12?)

Bob J.,

Let's see....

If you were to have a wild pitch ball four with less than 2 outs and the (unforced) R3 attempts to advance and is put out at the plate and the defense successfully appeals a BOOT what would happen?

Let's see, the proper batter would be called out, the R3 would be returned to 3B (and his out nullified), the improper batter would be removed from 1B, and the offense would send another batter to the plate.

Reference: J/R, Chapter 9 -- Appeals, I. Batting Out of Order, B. Defense appeals at correct time::

Originally Posted by J/R

(3)
Any runner who became out during the continuous action must return to his base; his out is nullified.

So if the offense does something illegal and we are going to disallow any outs obtained by the defense during the continuous action of the play on which the improper batter completed his at bat, I don't see why anyone who understands the rules of baseball would think we would allow the offense to gain an advantage by benefitting from any advances on the play.

Some people seem to think the rule says we only nullify advances that are "directly caused" by "the improper batter's actions". The rule certainly doesn't say that, and it doesn't mean that either.

I would say that the advance is properly nullified and the R3 is returned. Wouldn't you agree?

JM

[SAump]

If the defense appeals BOO with less than 2 out and the runner is returned to 3B, who was put out at the plate, would I ask the coach if he was sure of what he was doing? What if the coach realizes that he is better often allowing the play to stand. Can DC change his mind during the turmoil?

[SanDiegoSteve]

If an umpire falls in the forest, does he get bear crap on his ball bags?

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by PWL

When an improper batter becomes a runner or is put out and the the defensive team appeals to the umpire before the first legal pitch or illegal pitch, or, play or attempted play, or prior to an intentional base on balls or before the infielders leave the diamond if a half-inning is ending, the umpire shall declare the proper batter out and return all runners to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

Not to complicate things, but if the catcher retrieves the ball and throws to first, is that a "play or attempted play" that would serve as the exception described in 7-1-2-2, should the runner beat the throw.

[greymule]

From the March 6 thread:

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?

After some discussion, it was generally agreed on this thread that the advances were allowed and therefore the run did score. I think it was also agreed that even if the ball had stayed in play, if the umpire judged that the advances would have occurred with the wild pitch, they would stand. Several similar situations were also assessed.

[mcrowder]

Not to pick open an old scab, but I disagree. The INSTANT ball four crosses the plate, the runners are awarded a base, and this award is specifically due to the actions of the improper batter. The fact that the pitch subsequently went out of play did not add to anyone's award or change the situation at all. If it was just a wild pitch that stayed in the park, I'm even more convinced to put the runners back, as the defense would have FAR less urgency in trying to retrieve the ball, considering that they THINK they don't have a play at the plate on R1 due to the BB.

I've said it before, and I'll maintain that the only sitch where runners that advance simultaneously with a BOO batter's base on balls is a sitch where those runners advances were with liability to be put out (i.e. a runner advancing home or to third that was NOT forced by the BOO's BB). In any other sitch, the defense's reaction to those runners was tainted (read: affected) by the fact that BOO batter drew the walk.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Bob J.,

Let's see....

If you were to have a wild pitch ball four with less than 2 outs and the (unforced) R3 attempts to advance and is put out at the plate and the defense successfully appeals a BOOT what would happen?

Let's see, the proper batter would be called out, the R3 would be returned to 3B (and his out nullified), the improper batter would be removed from 1B, and the offense would send another batter to the plate.

Reference: J/R, Chapter 9 -- Appeals, I. Batting Out of Order, B. Defense appeals at correct time::



So if the offense does something illegal and we are going to disallow any outs obtained by the defense during the continuous action of the play on which the improper batter completed his at bat, I don't see why anyone who understands the rules of baseball would think we would allow the offense to gain an advantage by benefitting from any advances on the play.

Some people seem to think the rule says we only nullify advances that are "directly caused" by "the improper batter's actions". The rule certainly doesn't say that, and it doesn't mean that either.

I would say that the advance is properly nullified and the R3 is returned. Wouldn't you agree?

JM

I don't believe this is continuous action. The walk to the illegal batter and advance on a WP are two separate actions. The out would not be nullified and proper batter is out on appeal

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I don't believe this is continuous action. The walk to the illegal batter and advance on a WP are two separate actions.

NIump50,

Despite your "belief", this IS, in fact, "continuous action".

From J/R (to my knowledge, the only authoritative source which defines the concept):

Continuous action: an uninterrupted progression of play starting with the pitchand ending typically when the runners have ceased trying to advance, and the defense has relaxed and is returning (or has returned) the ball to the pitcher. ...

Originally Posted by NIump50

The out would not be nullified and proper batter is out on appeal

Despite your deep understanding of the rules and their proper application evident in this and other posts (res ipsa loquitor), I am more inclined to subscribe to the opposite opinion espoused by J/R:

(3) Any runner who became out during the continuous action must return to his base; his out is nullified. ...

Though I would certainly concur that the "...proper batter is out on appeal."

JM