Do you count the run?
 

Here's one that's got some associates of mine all flustered (I haven't told them the answer yet):

PLAY: Two outs and a runner on third base when an improper batter is at bat (Frank is batting but Edward is supposed to bat). The batter walks on ball four, a pitch that happens to get away from the catcher. R3 on third trots home on the wild pitch. The defensive manager then comes out to appeal the batting out of order. The umpire grants the appeal, declaring out Edward for not batting in his proper slot, and removes Frank from first base, inning over. Here's the question: do you count R3's run?

UMP25,

No.

JM

I think I intentionally confused many of them by reminding them that advances by runners due to balks or wild pitches when an improper batter is at bat do count. Not that this means the run counts. Just throwing that out there to further confuse the masses. :D

if the wild pitch happened on ball three and the runner from third scored then the run would of counted? is this correct?

Yankeesfan,

That would be absolutely correct.

JM

That is because R3 scored because he was awarded home on ball four in this case, and not as the result of a wild pitch or a balk. The fact that ball four was also a wild pitch does not mean R3's run counts for this very reason. On proper appeal, R3's run is negated.

S.D. Steve,

I believe that in UMP25's sitch, the R3 is the only baserunner. Therefore, there is no award to the R3 on the ball 4 (wild) pitch to the batter.

JM

Man, I'm not reading well lately.

Wouldn't the key to this situation be that, in this case, the batter's time at bat ends upon become a runner or more properly a batter-runner and therefore anything that occurs after this point can be negated by batting out of order.

The only way the run would score on an advance unrelated to the improper batters advance to first would be with less than two outs. This play has two outs and no run can score if the third out is made before the batter obtains first base. No run scores on this play.


Tim.

WUA has opined on this play. I'm "sure" someone at eteamz has the email

Trick question, right? That's NOT correct. The run would HAVE counted. :)

what are you talking about? thats what i said.

The run should count, UNLESS it is as a result of an action by the improper batter. For instance, if the improper batter singled, the run wouldn't count since that single by the improper batter caused the run to score.

Read it again. You said the run "would *OF* counted."

mbyron points out that "would *HAVE* counted" is proper.

It doesn't have to be an action by the batter. This had to be ball four before it became a passed ball, so any advance or run would be nullified.

6.07(b)When an improper batter becomes a runner or is put out, and the defensive team appeals to the umpire before the first pitch to the next batter of either team, or before any play or attempted play, the umpire shall (1) declare the proper batter out; and (2) nullify any advance or score made because of a ball batted by the improper batter or because of the improper batter’s advance to first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise.

NOTE: If a runner advances, while the improper batter is at bat, on a stolen base, illegal pitch, balk, wild pitch or passed ball, such advance is legal.


Tim.

Tim:

Does item (2) here refer to advances or scores due to runner's being FORCED to advance due to actions by the improper batter?

Bob P.

I don't think so, Bob. It comes down to a matter of judgment. You would have to ask yourself whether or not the advance of R3 was on the passed ball or the base on balls award. I would be hard pressed to assume either and return R3 regardless. The logic being that the base award preceeded the passed ball.


Here's what the J/R says.

J/R

Any runner who advanced because of the improper batters batted ball or award must return to his TOP base. A runner who advanced for some other reason (wild pick-off throw, overthrow, wild pitch, balk) is allowed his advance.


Tim.

Tim,

Thanks for the J/R reference. I would lean toward NOT allowing the run.

Bob P.

I agree, the pitch was a ball (not a strike) prior to its becoming a wild pitch/passed ball.

So, did R3 advance *BECAUSE* of the walk or *FOR SOME OTHER REASON* (that, coincidentally was *during* / also resulted in the walk)?

I think everyone is still misreading this as I originally did. There is a runner at 3rd base only, with no force situation, so the base on balls did not advance the runner, the wild-pitch did. I have changed my opinion and now believe that the run should count.

I'll vote for no run. Batter was put out (technically) before reaching 1st base for the 3rd out of the inning.

I agree that the run does not score. Clearly, R3 did not advance because of the walk (no force). Hence, R3 advanced for "some other reason," which would ordinarily allow the run to count (if only 1 were out, for instance).

But with 2 outs, the issue becomes: when does the inning end? Is the out called for BOO like the batter being out before reaching 1B (no run scores) or more like R1 being picked off (since R1 was, after all, walked, score the run).

I think it's more like BR being out before reaching 1B. Although the batter was walked, he was an improper batter, and we don't penalize the defense for that (or reward the offense). I'm not convinced that the correct batter is "technically" out before reaching 1B, since the rules don't explicitly provide for that.

But the logic seems correct: I would say that the inning ended when the proper batter was called out. There was no intervening play or pitch (or the newly proper batter would be on 1B), and so clearly the proper batter failed to reach 1B, and so the run could not score because the inning was over.

Why are we voting... this is absurd. No run - by rule. (Now, make this the 2nd or 1st out, and the run scores. An advance on a 4th ball by a non-forced runner, and no "play" made on the BR, is a legal advance as it was not DUE TO the BB, but merely coincidental to the BB.)

First, there is no mention of 'forced to advance' in either the rule itself or the authoritative resources.

Second, I guess we like to make it so 'hard' because we, unlike you, don't like to guess at what a rule means. In this thread you see some pretty darn smart men having an intelligent discussion on this topic. If you feel this applies only to a force play, please provide an approved ruling or caseplay to support your position. The MLBUM further demonstrates that no run can score here.

MLBUM

In addition to the preceding approved rulings regarding appeal plays, the examples and plays found in the Casebook Comments to Official Baseball Rule 4.09 also pertain to appeal plays. In particular, plays found in that section of the Official Baseball Rules demonstrate the following three concepts:

(1) No run shall score during a play in which the third out is made by the batter-runner before he touches first base.

(2) No run shall score during a play in which the third out is a force out.

(3) Following runners are not affected by an act of a preceding runner unless two are out.


Then again, you might be thinking of this MLBUM ruling.

MLBUM


5.14 RUNNER FORCED HOME ALLOWED TO SCORE AFTER THIRD OUT
A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance, is put out for the third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score. (See Casebook Comments to Official Baseball Rule 7.04(b).


Tim.

I still say the run counts, and that PWL is correct. The third out was certainly not made before the batter had obtained first base. Where do you get that? The improper batter was called out on appeal. That is after he had obtained first base, legally or illegally. J/R says that if the run scored on the wild pitch during the improper batter's at bat, then the run counts.

Steve:

He legally completed his time at bat as soon as he took ball four, so the advance was not during his time at bat. And, as the third out was an appeal his illegal touch of first base is the third out of the inning. Again, no run can score if the third out is made before the batter-runner legally touched first base.

Tim.

FED says no run on the BOO

Check out case book 7.2.1 C

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.

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.

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

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.......:o

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:

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.

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?)

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?

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

Hey Defense, Head on Straight?
 

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?

If an umpire falls in the forest, does he get bear crap on his ball bags?
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_14_2.gif

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.

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.

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.

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

NIump50,

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

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

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:

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

JM

Perhaps I mispoke on the 'continuous action' point, but for the purpose of this call they are two distinct and separate actions. R3s attempt to score has nothing to do with BOO. The defense will not be penalized and the out stands.
I see well qualified people on both sides of this issue and IMHO J/R is not conclusive on this sitch.
You have to remember
1. Most rules have been made and evolved over the years to address specific situations and issues, which is why many rules also have many exceptions as well.
2. It would be very difficult to write a rule and have every exception and situation covered from the get go. Which is why J/R comes out with new editions, with new interpretations and new cases on an annual basis.
3. This is why rule 9 was made.
4. This is why umpires need to be more than rule robots and have some common sense.

We can discuss the fine points of this situation and I believe reasonable men can reasonably disagree. If every rule was already perfectly written and perfectly interpreted your precious J/R would be out of business.

For me, in this situation, where I believe there is ambiguity I am going to approach it with my sense of baseball logic.
1. I'm not going to penalize the defense because the offense can't read the lineup card.
2. I take outs wherever I can get them.(It's the real world, deal with it)
3. Whenever in doubt, refer to #2.
OK maybe 2&3 are a tad flippant. But until a definitive interpretation to the contrary is produced I stand by #1.

And may I say, it's a good thing you are a coach and not an umpire.
A rules geek ump that enforces every rule by the letter of the law, more times than not causes more problems than he solves.

I also understand your condescending and know it all attitude as evidenced in your response to my post. You're a coach, I expect nothing less.

Posted by BigUmp56 on the March 6 thread:

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.

[Underlining is mine.]

NIump50,

Curiously enough, I find myself in nearly complete agreement with everything you said in your above post.

The "exception", if I understand you correctly, would be to your assertion that you would let additional outs obtained by the defense on the play stand upon a proper appeal by the offense.

Oddly enough, this would be the correct ruling in a game played under FED rules (Fed 7-1-2b Exception), but an incorrect ruling in a game played under OBR rules (PBUC Section 2.3).

The sarcasm evident in my response to your earlier post was elicited by your failure to provide any support for your assertions in terms of rule or interpretation citations, or even any coherent "train of thought" as to why you might believe those assertions to be correct. And the fact that you "misspoke" in making your initial assertion.

JM

So Coach, how exactly does the above interp square up with your quote below?


"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."

If it was mere sarcasm I would've more than likely ignored it.
I wasn't aware that lack of support for an opinion was grounds for throwing out proper decorum.

NI:

I think you'll find that The Official Forum, unlike some of the other umpiring forums, has a very knowledgeable membership. We tend to look for authoritative opinions when we weigh in on a play. Most of the members here don't subscribe to the "because I say so" school of thought. I'm not going to say whether you're right or wrong on this subject. I will tell you, however, that if you really want to support your positions you should post case plays and their rulings specific to the play at hand. You'll have a lot more credibility here if you do.


Tim.

NIump50,

I would have to say that it does not "square up" at all and, in fact, supports the position I have argued against in the discussion on this thread. (That is, it supports the position that the non-forced R3's run should or could stand on the Ball 4 wild pitch.)

It still strikes me as "odd" and inconsistent that the proper ruling would allow runs to stand (benefit to the offense) in one situation, while negating outs that were obtained (again, benefit to the offense) in another, when it the offense that is guilty of the infraction.

JM

I agree, and your point is well taken.
In this particular thread, rules and case plays had already been offered for both sides and I was weighing in on the side I felt was accurate based on my sense of logic.
I wasn't presenting it as authoratative and final, simply my take on a difficult interp.

If the rule intends for that to be the case, I agree, it is odd. I would not rule that way, as stated before I would allow the out.
I think that when ultimately defined the interpretation will have to be consistent.