I really believe that this is a BOO situation. I'll try to explain my thought process here.
Let's say that we have Able, #20, batting in the second slot. He steps to the plate and aquires a 2-2 count. Now skip wants to change batters for some reason. He brings in a legal sub, Baker, #21. The line up now has Baker hitting in the second slot until Skip feels like replacing him. We should all be able to agree on this.

Now as for the OP. We need to concern ourselves with the batter at bat when the balk was called. Let's call him Able, #20. Lets also say he occupies the second slot in the line up. The third spot is occupied by Baker, #21. In the OP, Able's at bat was completed (according to Rule 6.04) by Baker. This is where BOO comes in to effect. Because the second slot in the line up was completed by that player listed as occuping the third slot. The exact wording for BOO is "(a) A batter shall be called out, on appeal, when he fails to bat in his proper turn, and another batter completes a time at bat in his place."
According to the rules, if Able goes to first (becomes a runner) when his time at bat is not over, the player who finishes his at bat just did 1 of 2 things:
1) Became a legal un-announced substitute (if he wasn't in the line up)
2) Batted out of order (if he was listed in the line up already, which Baker was)

Now, pick apart this post and show me the error of my thinking. I'm open to having my mind changed.;)

Really? I always do this along with pointing him in the proper direction with my right hand...:D



I hope all realize this is sarcasm.

I believe Lance says the PU should at least walk him to the 45-foot line (to make sure the B/R gets to first quickly to keep the game moving) especially with an R3...although I could be wrong, I'm no Lance expert.:(

If R3 should advance, then the BU would rotate home and take the play at the plate from nearly the same spot Froemming did the other night. :)

"According to the rules, if Able goes to first (becomes a runner) when his time at bat is not over, the player who finishes his at bat just did 1 of 2 things:
1) Became a legal un-announced substitute (if he wasn't in the line up)
2) Batted out of order (if he was listed in the line up already, which Baker was)"

You'll need to show me that specific rule.

1. Able is still in the game, albeit standing in the wrong place. There is no substitute.

2. Although at bat mistakenly, he is following the order, after Able.

Carl has nailed this. This indeed ain't basketball. Bring the batter back to finish his at bat. It's that simple.

I believe the problem you're having is illustrated by your first statement. "I really believe that this is a BOO situation."

It isn't.

Okay, Let me take you through what the rules say the process of "batting" is:

6.01(a) Each player of the offensive team shall bat in the order that his name appears in his team’s batting order.

6.02 The batter shall take his position in the batter’s box promptly when it is his time at bat.

6.03 The batter's legal position shall be with both feet within the batter's box.

6.04 A batter has legally completed his time at bat when he is put out or becomes a runner. (Which in the OP never legally happened)

6.07 BATTING OUT OF TURN.
(a) A batter shall be called out, on appeal, when he fails to bat in his proper turn, and another batter completes a time at bat in his place. (Which may or may not have happened in the OP because we don't know what the count was when the balk was called.)

And as for a legal unannounced substitute:

3.08(a) If no announcement of a substitution is made, the substitute shall be considered as having entered the game when --
(2) If a batter, he takes his place in the batter’s box;

(b) Any play made by, or on, any of the above mentioned unannounced substitutes shall be legal.


2. Although at bat mistakenly, he is following the order, after Able.

He is not legally following Able's at bat, according to the rules, he's finishing Able's at bat.

When the proper batter (Able) is on base his spot is "skipped" and the next batter (Baker) comes to the plate.

I agree that the only two options are "bring him back and do it over" or "leave it as it is". I'd choose the former, if I could undo whatever had been done. If Baker gets a hit on one of the first pitches, or runners advance, or are put out, .... then I'd be more likely to let it stand.

We've had similar discussions, with similar answers, when R2 mistakenly becomes R3 after a TO to talk with the third base coach.

Convoluted at best.

Only two things can happen. If the umpire allows Able to stay at first, Baker is batting in order. If the umpire wakes up and brings Able back, Baker isn't batting at all. It's really simple.

I could enter the fray and prolong this thread by arguing point for point. But why? As you said, you "believe" this is a batting out of order sitiuation.

Again, read Carl's post, then Bob Jenkins'. They have it simple, neat and as correct as you will find absent a specific rule or ruling. There is no need to invent or invite further problems.

No, because upon appeal the proper batter (Able) is the batter called out for BOO.

Okay, I can live with that since, after revisiting the OP, there was never an appeal made by the defense.

In all honesty, if I were on the field when something like this happened (spare me the day), I would most likely support a do-over.

I wasn't speaking LL either, I was speaking genericly, and really just to prove a point.

How do you differentiate in your mind between the basecoach scenario - legal player wanders onto base and is not caught, and the OP - batter improperly gets onto base and is not caught. The admittedly absurd basecoach scenario is not an illegal sub (who'd he sub for?!?!). He's simply a player that managed to walk onto base without anyone noticing - which to me is not THAT far removed from the OP. I can't see leaving EITHER of these runners on base, regardless of the fact that a pitch was thrown. This is not up to the defense to appeal or protest. To avoid using the word "illegally", since there's obviously no real rule here, the player (in either sitch) is on base IMPROPERLY, and should (via 9.01c) be removed.

I think 9.01c should be used VERY rarely, but this sitch seems tailor made for it.

Another thought...
 

Why do some feel that it is o.k. to bring R1 back at-bat after the two pitches have been thrown, but that they couldn't bring him back if something had happened (hit, infield fly, whatever) on one of those two pitches?

Now, I know that the likely answer is: "well, because he's still at first, and nothing has happened (outs or hits) so its easy to bring him back."

"Easy" doesn't mean its correct. Subsequent action (pitch, play or attempted play) is subsequent action. Why should one give more weight to the next subsequent play being a double on the next pitch, than they would to the next pitch just being a called "ball" or "strike"? Where in the rules is there support for this notion (I guessing some will suggest BOO)?

As for the idea of "fairness" (which has been raised) wouldn't it be more "fair" to correct the mistake in a situation where, after the B/R improperly goes to first base, on the next pitch the next batter hits a double scoring the improper runner...as opposed to fixing it merely after two pitches caught by the catcher?

In the former, the offense gets a Double benefit: they not only get a runner, but they got a run as a result of the improper runner. In the latter the offense only got one benefit: a runner who may or may not score. I would think "fairness" would dictate that the umpire correct the mistake where the runner scores than where he is still at first after a couple of pitches because of the double benefit to the offense. (And as I previously said, IMO, "fairness" does not always lead to the correct result.)

In my mind both (a hit on the next pitch, or a next pitch caught by the catcher) are the same thing: subsequent action in the game that ends the period of time during which the "offended" team could protest and/or appeal.

Again, the umpire screwed up and "awarded" first as a result of a balk (either by positively telling him to go to first (which honest-to-God I saw happen in a varsity high school game once [I was not umpiring]!!!) or by simply letting him go to first). The time to protest the umpire's misapplication of the rules expired when the next pitch occured....whether that pitch was drilled for a home-run or simply caught by the catcher.

Just another thought...

Well, gosh, I just didn't read the whole thread.

I don't what happened after B1 went to base illegally. Anything resulting from that - until discovere3d - is void.

I treat it just as if there were not 8 players (plus the catcher) on the field.

Another play: F1 balks, with runners on second and third. The umpire scores R3 and forgets to advance R1. There's a pitch. "Oops!"

Does R2 stay at second?

Now that I understand your base coaching scenario better, I admit it is a good question.

The distinction, however, is a factually based one. The OP involves a "legal player", your situation does not. I use "legal player" to mean one who is legally in the game.

In your scenario, the coach cannot at anytime be in the game legally...there is a violation of the substition rules: namely, he didn't sub for anyone! Your situation absolutely calls for 9.01 (c), if for no other reason than PBUC, MLBUM, J/R have never contemplated this occuring so its not addressed by any rules authority. But most importantly...your situation does not involve a misapplication of the rules by the umpires. There was no call made by the umpires that could have trigged the coaches' conduct.

However, in the OP, while I cannot guarantee it (since I can't read the player's mind), it is likely that the B/R went to first as a result of Balk call...that is, he believed the penalty included him going to first. As I said above, the umpires' actions in letting him go and stay at first constitute a misapplication of the rules by the umpires and demand a protest...IMHO.

We, as umpires, are often called upon to judge players' intent (was it malicious contact? Was he throwing at the batter? etc.). We can only do our best to determine the intent. The OP's batter likely went to first because of the "Balk" call and his belief that he was entitled to first base a result thereof. Your coach likely went to first because he's trying to make Ty Cobb look like a saint...he's a cheating prick. The protest rule was never intended to prevent an umpire from punishing, ejecting and nullifying the actions of a flagrant cheater...it was designed to prevent an umpire (after a period of time) from "punishing" a player, and his team, who benefitted from a misapplication of the rules.

Is that any good? :D

I don't know who is saying that (I'm too lazy to re-read the entire thread), but I'm not.

My job is to see that neither team gets an advantage not intended by the rules. Bring him back. If something happened before Rip VanWinkle wakes up, it never happened.

This is a great response. I contend that by not punishing the offensive team, the umpire is certainly setting himself up for a protest. Regardless of the Batters intent, he advanced to first base without being eligible to do so. If B2 completes B1's at bat, there has to (after a proper appeal) be an out called. Otherwise, it's unfair to the defense.



BTW- This is a great thread!