ML Batting out of Order

[LeeBallanfant]

Major League Rules:

Visiting Manager submits batting order to Umpire, Abel, Baker, Chambers, Demeter etc. but inadvertently posts Baker, Abel, Chambers, Demeter in dugout.

Baker leads off game and takes 2 called strikes and gets ejected. Jackson bats for Baker and completes K. Abel comes up and singles. Home Mgr comes to HP umpire and says not only is Abel out of turn, but he should not be in game at all as he was PH for when Jackson came in.

Ruling?

[Jerry]

Since no appeal was made that Baker/Jackson batted out of order, Chambers became the next "proper" batter that should be up to the plate. However, when Abel batted in his place, Chambers should be the one called "out" on the BOO appeal, thus making Demeter the proper third batter.

Interestingly, had the Home team not appealed Abel batting out of turn, the proper batter should again be Baker/Jackson and not Chambers!

[lawump]

Here's my early morning stab...without looking at any rulebooks and without the benefit of coffee.

(1) Baker was ejected...not Abel. Baker is the one who argued...no one else. The ejection (and the subsequent fine/suspension are personal to him).

(2) Baker was batting out of order.

(3) Jackson is Baker's substitute. Baker was ejected, Jackson replaced him. Abel is still legally in the game. (Abel is in the game because he's listed on the official line-up: the umpire's card.)

(4) Jackson, as Baker's substitute, is now batting-out-of order.

(5) Jackson completed his at-bat, and the opposing team did not properly appeal. That is, they did not appeal before another pitch, play, etc.

(6) Thus, Jackson's at-bat became "legalized". And the next proper batter is Chambers.

(7) Abel batted out-of-order. The defensive team appealed at the proper time: after Abel hit a single.

(8) CHAMBERS (not Abel) is called out for failing to bat in his proper spot in the order.

(9) Demeter is now the proper batter with two outs and no runners on base. Abel is still in the game, Baker is still ejected and Jackson is Baker's legal substitute.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

Major League Rules:

Visiting Manager submits batting order to Umpire, Abel, Baker, Chambers, Demeter etc. but inadvertently posts Baker, Abel, Chambers, Demeter in dugout.

Baker leads off game and takes 2 called strikes and gets ejected. Jackson bats for Baker and completes K. Abel comes up and singles. Home Mgr comes to HP umpire and says not only is Abel out of turn, but he should not be in game at all as he was PH for when Jackson came in.

Ruling?

No matter what the line up says, Baker led off and was not appealed. The proper batter is Chambers so he is out. The next batter is Demeter.

[Jerry]

Actually, "LeeBallanfant" poses an interesting scenario, now that I re-read the initial post. The Home team Manager may have a very legitimate question. It may not be a question of batting out of order at all. It could actually be an illegal player entering the game. Let me explain.

While an apparent improper batter is still at the plate, he may be replaced by the proper batter and assume the existing ball and strike count. In this case, when Baker was ejected from the game with a two strike count, Jackson came to the plate. In essence, Abel could have assumed that count, but Jackson was inserted as a Pinch Hitter for Abel . . . not as a replacement for Baker!

Using that scenario, when Abel came to bat after Jackson and then completed his turn, he was actually entering the game as an illegal substitute; as the replacement for Baker's yet unnamed substitute.

Now if that were the case, Abel would be declared "out" and ejected from the game. Jackson would replace Abel in the lineup, another bench player is named to replace Baker and Chambers would come to bat.

While not covered in the rules, this scenario is covered quite well in "The Rules of Professional Baseball:A Comprehensive Reorganization and Interpretation" by Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Jerry

Actually, "LeeBallanfant" poses an interesting scenario, now that I re-read the initial post. The Home team Manager may have a very legitimate question. It may not be a question of batting out of order at all. It could actually be an illegal player entering the game. Let me explain.

While an apparent improper batter is still at the plate, he may be replaced by the proper batter and assume the existing ball and strike count. In this case, when Baker was ejected from the game with a two strike count, Jackson came to the plate. In essence, Abel could have assumed that count, but Jackson was inserted as a Pinch Hitter for Abel . . . not as a replacement for Baker!

Using that scenario, when Abel came to bat after Jackson and then completed his turn, he was actually entering the game as an illegal substitute; as the replacement for Baker's yet unnamed substitute.

Now if that were the case, Abel would be declared "out" and ejected from the game. Jackson would replace Abel in the lineup, another bench player is named to replace Baker and Chambers would come to bat.

While not covered in the rules, this scenario is covered quite well in "The Rules of Professional Baseball:A Comprehensive Reorganization and Interpretation" by Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder.

I disagree, Jerry. Baker batted out of order, got ejected, then Jackson took his place & struck out. Able came to bat (out of order) and singled. That made Jackson (batting in Baker's slot) the proper batter. The next batter should have been Chambers.

Don't let the ejection of Baker confuse you.

[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.