All true, but conceivably the switch was an actual batting out of order, undetected at the time, and therefore not necessarily cheating. Not a very high likelihood of this happening, though.


And probably, once the music begins to play, somebody on the offensive team will give it away.

2006 Brd
 

In 2006 BRD 471, page 285, Carl writes, "Note 422: Illegal substitutions is one of nine major rule situations where each level treats the play differently."
It is much easier to read page 287, "BRD 476 Substitutes: Pinch Runner: Illegal" to more easily understand those differences.
In summary, upon proper appeal: FED: run nullified. NCAA: Out and run nullified. OBR: Not out and run scores.

I don't think there is a rule or interpretation to cover this. So I would allow the run, because defense had an opportunity to complain even before the first pitch after the switch, and did not. I would then eject the offensive manager for unsportsmanlike conduct.

I think you have stated the passed runner rule and I would use it.

The problem with this is that it has to be called when it happens. To retroactively use this rule, would amount to changing ball to a called strike about 2-3 pitches after the runner has taken first base on a walk. Granted the switching of runners on base is an act of cheating by the offense, it is still our place to catch this when it happens just as we would be expected to make a ball/strike call when it happens. I know there is the issue of the run being added 3 innings after the fact in the Baltimore game about a month ago, but this is a situation where the umps didn't misapply the rules (which is what they ruled they did in the Baltimore game), but rather a missed call.

Nevertheless, the actions of the manager are clearly unsportsmanlike and require an ejection. Depending on age level and ruleset, I'm ejecting/restricting both runners as well assuming they were of a sufficient age to understand what they were doing.

As far as the issue of cheating allowing us to fix the issue however we see fit based on 9.01(c), I think the history of cheating suggests otherwise. If a player is found with a corked bat in his 3 AB of a game and hit HR's in the first two, we don't just erase the previous AB's. We can call him out for and nullify action during the 3rd AB if it is discovered at the proper time, but not two to three pitches later. If the first baseman is involved in all 3 outs of the first inning, and his illegal glove is discovered on the 3rd out of the inning, we don't go back and start the game over again. Sometimes stuff happens that cannot be corrected to erase the cheating and thats the unfortunate thing about cheating.

Thank you. In fact, I watch for this kind of thing when multiple runners are on. But if, as in the OP, I had missed it, I could easily look it up in the book. Maybe some people don't know that umpires are allowed to do this.

Dave's right that BOO would cause the same symptoms, and he's also right that these things unravel fast under scrutiny. Moreover, although I don't keep the lineup in my head, I do notice whether the little guy batted before or after the big guy.

We can't use the rule against passing another runner, which applies only during live ball and is a baserunning mistake, not an act of cheating.

As for allowing the run, I just can't see it. I don't accept the analogy of an illegal bat or glove: those are specific rule violations with specific penalties attached. This blatant act of cheating must be corrected, or there would be too much cheese for future rats.

And, as Carter so neatly points out: I'd love to attend the protest hearing over my canceling the run.

FED had this play (except the discovery was timely, and not a few pitches after one of the runners had scored) in one of their interps a few years ago. IIRC, the ruling was "R1 is out for passing a runner. R2 is out for running the bases in reverse order. The coach is ejected for unsporting conduct."

I can see FED ruling that way - if you eject both runners, too often the game would be over (when teams field only 9).

The FED ruling probably had R1 and R2 reversed from what you describe (R1 initially on 3B, now 2B, ran the bases in reverse).