HR, batter misses 1st

[NIump50]

I thought your previous post was specifically speaking to the next batter being an automatic out. sorry.

Originally Posted by mcrowder

No, NIUmp - perhaps you didn't read my post about halfway up.

This is another GREAT example of why you make sure all potential plays are completed before letting the next guy come up. The batter with the steel pipe is not going to be allowed into the batters box (and then called out) until it is apparent the defense is ready to move on from the previous play..

Previous play as Bob described, but play ends with a dead ball.
2 man crew
PU does not know BR missed first. Only BU.
Next batter steps in, again according to Bob's situation, let's say with an obviously illegal bat. PU rings him up. Defense intended to appeal when play resumed.
Now what?
If PU does not know there is an appeal forthcoming he won't know to delay his out call for an illegal bat.
If you don't rule according to Bob's apparent way of thinking you've just given a huge advantage to the team that screwed up twice. And screwed the team that did absolutely nothing wrong.
Again I'll reiterate.
Classic case of rules not being able to fairly adapt to all situations.
Common sense is needed.

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Extend your sitch a little further, but using your ruling... What if there was only ONE out - a player misses a base, the next batter comes in illegally and is called out, and NOW you're going to allow an appeal play on the previous play - potentially a 3rd out when there was no chance of getting a 3rd out at all prior to the NEXT batter coming in for his at bat. No ... you can't do that.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
one out
BR misses base-potential 2nd out
Illegal batter-3rd out.

potentially a 3rd out when there was no chance of getting a 3rd out at all prior to the NEXT batter coming in for his at bat.

help me understand why there is no chance of getting a third out.

[mcrowder]

OK, I'll explain that last part a little better.

Bases loaded, 1 out. Home run over the fence, but BR misses 1st base. Everyone enters the dugout. PU gives the new ball to F2, who throws to F1. F1 is ready to pitch, and the next batter comes to the plate with a steel pipe as a bat. PU rings up the batter for the illegal bat. 2 outs. NOW you want to allow defense to appeal at 1st base for the 3rd out (which, now being the 3rd out would nullify all 4 runs, when only a 2nd out was available to them)? Surely you see the inequity in that situation, yet this is exactly what you were proposing to do earlier - allowing an appeal after a subsequent batter was called out for something he did during his at bat.

To answer your other question, if the defense wanted to appeal, there is no conceivable reason for them to get set, wait for the next batter to get in the box, and then appeal. Even if PU didn't know an appeal was pending, he must make sure all previous play is finished before allowing a new batter to come to the plate.

I admit this gets tricky in the levels/rulesets that require a live ball for an appeal - but a good umpire is aware of his surroundings. Usually, even if PU didn't see the missed base, players/coaches/fans all over are hollering about the missed base. But these two cases illustrate why it's imperative for there to be a separation of sorts between a subsequent play (be it a batter called out for not being present, or a batter called out for an illegal bat, etc.)

I suppose if an umpire was having an off-day and flubbed this (either the pipe bat or the out for the missing player) by ringing up a batter prior to a possible appeal, the appeal out needs to be rung up before any future outs (illegal bat, missing player, etc) with respect to figuring out whether runs score on the previous play.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Surely you see the inequity in that situation, yet this is exactly what you were proposing to do earlier - allowing an appeal after a subsequent batter was called out for something he did during his at bat..

I agree.
Bob's scenario was a 4th out sitch as opposed to this one.

Originally Posted by mcrowder

To answer your other question, if the defense wanted to appeal, there is no conceivable reason for them to get set, wait for the next batter to get in the box, and then appeal. Even if PU didn't know an appeal was pending, he must make sure all previous play is finished before allowing a new batter to come to the plate.

I admit this gets tricky in the levels/rulesets that require a live ball for an appeal - but a good umpire is aware of his surroundings. Usually, even if PU didn't see the missed base, players/coaches/fans all over are hollering about the missed base. But these two cases illustrate why it's imperative for there to be a separation of sorts between a subsequent play (be it a batter called out for not being present, or a batter called out for an illegal bat, etc.)

I suppose if an umpire was having an off-day and flubbed this (either the pipe bat or the out for the missing player) by ringing up a batter prior to a possible appeal, the appeal out needs to be rung up before any future outs (illegal bat, missing player, etc) with respect to figuring out whether runs score on the previous play.

I agree totally. Your explanation is reality based.
My agreement with Bob and subsequent posts were based on the sitch posted and the theoritical.
If an illegal batter was called out upon stepping into the box and the defense wanted to appeal the previous play which would then be the 4th out. I would use creative license to allow it.
But I do agree that proper management would be to prevent that from happening in the 1st place.