Correctable Error?

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Because the wrong batter was up, any actions related to his at-bat must be ignored. Return the "balked" batter to the plate and resume.

Any actions as a result of an action by the improper batter are nullified. If a runner steals while there is an improper batter at bat, the steal is okay.
6.07(b)(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, balk, wild pitch or passed ball, such advance is legal.

[BoomerSooner]

I don't think you can apply BOO in this situation because when such a situation occurs it is neither the place of the umpire or official scorer or any other form of game management to point out BOO. In this case it sounds like the umpire pointed out what some are calling a BOO situation (I'm not in the camp of trying to apply BOO). So for those calling for a BOO, the situation is now compounded because if it is explained to the offensive coach as BOO, I'm sure he could lodge a protest on the grounds of the umpire pointing out the BOO (not his place to do so). Just some thoughts on why it shouldn't be ruled that way. Feel free to rip my arguement.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

Any actions as a result of an action by the improper batter are nullified. If a runner steals while there is an improper batter at bat, the steal is okay.
6.07(b)(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, balk, wild pitch or passed ball, such advance is legal.

You're citing a rule that is not applicable here. We're not talking about batting out of order; rather, we're addressing a batter who shouldn't have reached the base because his at-bat wasn't completed.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by UMP25

You're citing a rule that is not applicable here. We're not talking about batting out of order; rather, we're addressing a batter who shouldn't have reached the base because his at-bat wasn't completed.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

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

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.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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