ML Batting out of Order

[Jerry]

Ozzie,
I'm not confused at all. Perhaps you haven't studied the entire scenario or my reply in the context it was given. I was simply pointing out that "LeeBallanfant" could have been posing a question that had nothing to do with someone batting out of order; in which case the UIC's ruling would be different. If it were a simple batting out of order question, it's a very straightforward ruling.

Rule 6.07(a)(1) states: "The proper batter may take his place in the batter's box at any time before the improper batter becomes a runner or is put out, and any balls and strikes shall be counted in the proper batter's time at bat."

Baker, if you recall, started out batting when Abel should have been up to bat. Baker was ejected before he either became a runner or was put out. I believe this is the point where YOU may be getting confused. While everyone is thinking that Jackson is unwittingly going into the game to replace Baker with the possibility of becoming an improper batter on appeal, what if Abel actually was supposed to go in to pick up the 2-strike count and be in the proper batting order? Instead of Abel doing that though, Jackson pinch hits for him. It is that very scenario that the home team manager is suggesting when he says that Abel is an ineligible player when he eventually does come up to bat.

Does it make more sense to you now?

Jerry

[greymule]

It is an interesting point, especially if the manager tells the umpire, "Jackson in for Baker." (Or how about "Jackson in for my lead-off man"?) As umpire, I would have to be guided by the official substitution as reported by the manager, regardless of who is up. If Baker is ejected, it must be clear exactly whom Jackson is batting for. If the manager actually reported the change as "Jackson for Abel" (unlikely), then that's the substitution.

In the original situation, upon Baker's ejection the manager should tell the umpire, "Jackson for Baker" and then send Abel up to assume the count.

I'm going to check the J/R.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Jerry

Ozzie,
I'm not confused at all. Perhaps you haven't studied the entire scenario or my reply in the context it was given. I was simply pointing out that "LeeBallanfant" could have been posing a question that had nothing to do with someone batting out of order; in which case the UIC's ruling would be different. If it were a simple batting out of order question, it's a very straightforward ruling.

Rule 6.07(a)(1) states: "The proper batter may take his place in the batter's box at any time before the improper batter becomes a runner or is put out, and any balls and strikes shall be counted in the proper batter's time at bat."

Baker, if you recall, started out batting when Abel should have been up to bat. Baker was ejected before he either became a runner or was put out. I believe this is the point where YOU may be getting confused. While everyone is thinking that Jackson is unwittingly going into the game to replace Baker with the possibility of becoming an improper batter on appeal, what if Abel actually was supposed to go in to pick up the 2-strike count and be in the proper batting order? Instead of Abel doing that though, Jackson pinch hits for him. It is that very scenario that the home team manager is suggesting when he says that Abel is an ineligible player when he eventually does come up to bat.

Does it make more sense to you now?

Jerry

Jerry,

Unless the manager SPECIFICALLY says that Jackson is substituting for Abel who is assuming his rightful spot in the batting order, i'm taking it as a substitution for baker.

Lawump nailed it. The ejection of baker should have no bearing on the play. Treat baker and jackson as one person (or treat it as if baker never got ejected).

[Jerry]

Bossman,
I agree with you except for one part of your response. If you read the very first reply to the question, you'll see that my first response was exactly what the ruling would be in case of a batting out of order situation. In fact, I used the names Baker/Jackson to be one and the same, assuming Jackson was batting out of order in place of the ejected Baker. The ejection has absolutely nothing to do with the batting out of order.

My recent replies were to give a ruling in the off chance that Jackson was indeed sent to the plate for Abel, who realized that Baker was batting out of order.

What the original scenario did not address was, what did Jackson or the Visitors' Manager tell the UIC when he reached the batter's box.

As for telling anyone that someone is batting out of turn, the UIC is not authorized by rule to do that. Nor is a scorekeeper, announcer or anyone else not connected to the teams. The UIC should only make a ruling when an appeal is requested. If Jackson said, "I'm replacing Baker", then all the UIC should do is mark his lineup card and announce that. If Jackson said, "I'm replacing Abel", then again, all that the UIC should do is mark his card and announce the replacement accordingly.

The ruling the UIC needs to make depends on whom Jackson replaced in the game. Dependant on that ruling, either Chambers or Demeter would be at bat. And either Abel is ejected or still in the game.
Jerry

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Jerry

Ozzie,
I'm not confused at all. Perhaps you haven't studied the entire scenario or my reply in the context it was given. I was simply pointing out that "LeeBallanfant" could have been posing a question that had nothing to do with someone batting out of order; in which case the UIC's ruling would be different. If it were a simple batting out of order question, it's a very straightforward ruling.

Rule 6.07(a)(1) states: "The proper batter may take his place in the batter's box at any time before the improper batter becomes a runner or is put out, and any balls and strikes shall be counted in the proper batter's time at bat."

Baker, if you recall, started out batting when Abel should have been up to bat. Baker was ejected before he either became a runner or was put out. I believe this is the point where YOU may be getting confused. While everyone is thinking that Jackson is unwittingly going into the game to replace Baker with the possibility of becoming an improper batter on appeal, what if Abel actually was supposed to go in to pick up the 2-strike count and be in the proper batting order? Instead of Abel doing that though, Jackson pinch hits for him. It is that very scenario that the home team manager is suggesting when he says that Abel is an ineligible player when he eventually does come up to bat.

Does it make more sense to you now?

Jerry

Sorry I cannot agree with you. Don't take it personal because That is not how I mean this, but it is not a complicated matter.

Fact - Baker batted out of order.

Fact - Baker got ejected, then Jackson took his place & struck out.

Fact - Able came to bat (out of order) and singled.

Fact - Abel's action legalized Jackson.

On the official line up, it is Abel (1), Baker (2), Chambers (3), Demeter (4)....
Able was not PH'd for because it was Baker who got ejected trying to bat in the #1 slot. Able is a legal batter in the line up. He just stepped in at the wrong time, that's all. Chambers should have been batting as the #3 batter so he is called out and the next batter in the official line up is the #4 batter. And viola, the #4 batter is Demeter!

As I stated before, it is a simple BOO but as the posts go on, you guys are complicating the $hit out of it. I teach my students the KISS method - it applies here!

Cheers!

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by Jerry

Baker, if you recall, started out batting when Abel should have been up to bat. Baker was ejected before he either became a runner or was put out. I believe this is the point where YOU may be getting confused. While everyone is thinking that Jackson is unwittingly going into the game to replace Baker with the possibility of becoming an improper batter on appeal, what if Abel actually was supposed to go in to pick up the 2-strike count and be in the proper batting order? Instead of Abel doing that though, Jackson pinch hits for him. It is that very scenario that the home team manager is suggesting when he says that Abel is an ineligible player when he eventually does come up to bat.

Does it make more sense to you now?

Jerry

No. It is utterly illogical. The PLAYER was ejected; not his position. The player who replaced him was replacing the PLAYER, not a position.

While your (and the defensive manager's) scenario is technically feasible, it is clearly not the logical, intuitive explanation of what happened. It should be given no consideration, unless and only unless the offensive manager, in making the substitution, explicitly recognized and acknowledged that the ejected player was batting out of order, and the player stepping into the box now was a pinch hitter for Abel, rather than a replacement for the ejected player. Absent that explicit acknowledgment and explanation, what you have is what is clearly obvious - ejected player replaced by substitute, who continues an out-of-turn at bat.

It's a horse, not a zebra.