Batting out of order

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by greymule

The BOO rule is about as simple as it can be.

Except that different codes handle it differently. Fed differs from OBR, for example. What code does your association operate under?

I think the only difference is whether outs made by the imporper batter putting the ball in play stand. It's no more "different" than other rules, and is realtively simple one an umpire realizes that it should be called "Being Too Stupid To Bat When It's Your Turn."

[greymule]

I think the only difference is whether outs made by the improper batter putting the ball in play stand.

True, and this applies only to runners, not the batter.

There may be another difference, depending on how Fed interprets "the time of the pitch": Bases loaded, no outs. Abel is the proper batter but Baker bats out of order. Ball 4 to Baker caroms off F2's shinguard and into the dugout. All runners move up a base, and Baker proceeds to 1B. The defense then appeals the BOO.

In OBR, Baker is out [edited to say: actually Abel is out, Baker bats again . . . duh!; see next post], but the runners are permitted the advance, not on the base on balls, but on the pitch that went into DBT. I don't know how Fed would treat this play, but in ASA softball any advance made on the last pitch to the batter is nullified, no matter how such advance came about. (In another difference, ASA softball also gives the defense any out made on the improper batter.)

Regardless, all codes I know would treat the Blue Jays–Mariners incident the same way.

[ptman]

Originally Posted by greymule

There may be another difference, depending on how Fed interprets "the time of the pitch": Bases loaded, no outs. Abel is the proper batter but Baker bats out of order. Ball 4 to Baker caroms off F2's shinguard and into the dugout. All runners move up a base, and Baker proceeds to 1B. The defense then appeals the BOO.

In OBR, Baker is out.

I think you meant Baker is removed, Abel is out, and Baker is now the batter.

Under Fed rules, an appeal is lost even if no pitch is thrown if the defense initiates a play. OBR does not expressly qualify losing the appeal on a play initiated by the defense. It says "before any play or attempted play." If an improper batter singles and then tries to steal before any pitch is thrown to the next batter, and the pitcher steps off and throws to second, under Fed the appeal is still alive. Is that true under OBR?

[greymule]

I think you meant Baker is removed, Abel is out, and Baker is now the batter.

Yes, thanks. Uh . . . just testing to see whether people are paying attention!


Under Fed rules, an appeal is lost even if no pitch is thrown if the defense initiates a play. OBR does not expressly qualify losing the appeal on a play initiated by the defense. It says "before any play or attempted play." If an improper batter singles and then tries to steal before any pitch is thrown to the next batter, and the pitcher steps off and throws to second, under Fed the appeal is still alive. Is that true under OBR?

If memory serves, you're right about Fed on this matter. But in OBR, any play after the end of continuing action (like the attempted steal in your scenario), whether initiated by offense or defense, cancels the right to appeal. 6.07(b) [in my 2001 book]

[JugglingReferee]

On the sports report, I heard that the HP umpire had never had a BOO incident in his entire MLB career, which if true, is probably what prompted the conference. Example: I've done football for 12 years, and I've only ever had 1 illegal participation flag. I was unsure how to apply that penalty: I needed help from my crew.

[greymule]

I heard that the HP umpire had never had a BOO incident in his entire MLB career

I didn't even consider that angle. He probably knew the rule once, but never having been confronted with the situation, forgot how to rule on it. I know that could happen to me.

[BJFan]

I was present at the game yesterday and registered to join this discussion. I'm a fan and rat so admittedly I don't know much when it comes to rule technicalities and don't know what an OBR is (I was the only person it seemed at the game who had any clue what was going on although my first instinct was that Russ Adams was in the lineup in place of Aaron Hill, and it wasn't a BOO situation, this happened earlier in the season with John McDonald and Royce Clayton).

What happened was John Gibbons intended to have Lyle Overbay bat before Aaron Hill. This was the line-up posted in the dugout and on the screen at the Dome. The line-up provided to the umpires and the opposing manager had Hill before Overbay. What I found most interesting was that Hill and Gibbons didn't argue the call at all (I joined the boo birds though). Gibby admitted he signed the card without checking it and took responsibility for the error.

Here's where I get confused.

Overbay obviously batted out of order. Hill then followed, also out of order. I'm having trouble with the logic of the out being charged to Zaun. Are you saying that the order does not depend on the numerical sequence of batters in the inning, but rather who would naturally follow the actual batter? I would think, logically, that the error was having the wrong person batting in the 7 spot (Hill for Overbay), but some of you seem to be saying that the error was not having the correct person follow Overbay (Zaun) in the 8 spot. What I figured was that if the Jays figured out the mistake they could have Overbay bat for the second time in the inning. What you folks seem to be saying is that once the wrong person bats, the next person who should bat is the person following this batter, providing the opposing team does not discover the mistake. Hypothetically then, if Zaun came up after Overbay and had a pitch thrown to him, effectively skipping Aaron Hill altogether, would the Jays be fine because they would get back into order?

I know that all sounds confusing, so if nobody can understand what I am asking please let me know and I'll try again.

[BJFan]

Thanks for the explanation MIB. I am still having trouble with a few things. You had stated that Hill should be removed from 2B. Why exactly is that? He just missed his turn and was not really replaced by anyone. You also say the out should be charged to Zaun for BOO. In actuality, Hill was the one batting in Zaun's place (with Overbay's at-bat being legalized by the pitch to Hill) - so how exactly is Zaun BOO, it's still Hill commiting the act, no?

On the screen at the Dome they charged Hill with an at-bat. Assuming Zaun was properly charged with the out, why must his average suffer for the error? Also, why wipe-out the double? In the same way statistics count should an inning not count due to something like a suspended game, why can't Zaun get some credit for the hit? Does the pitcher have the pitches wiped from his strike-ball count as well?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by BJFan

Thanks for the explanation MIB. I am still having trouble with a few things. You had stated that Hill should be removed from 2B. Why exactly is that? He just missed his turn and was not really replaced by anyone. You also say the out should be charged to Zaun for BOO. In actuality, Hill was the one batting in Zaun's place (with Overbay's at-bat being legalized by the pitch to Hill) - so how exactly is Zaun BOO, it's still Hill committing the act, no?

On the screen at the Dome they charged Hill with an at-bat. Assuming Zaun was properly charged with the out, why must his average suffer for the error? Also, why wipe-out the double? In the same way statistics count should an inning not count due to something like a suspended game, why can't Zaun get some credit for the hit? Does the pitcher have the pitches wiped from his strike-ball count as well?

The screen on the Dome should not have charged Hill with an AB, and Zaun was not out for batting out of order himself, he was out for Hill batting out of order when Zaun was supposed to bat. The act being punished is Zaun failing to hit in his spot.

Here is the simplified version of the BOO rule as it applies here.:

Whoever was supposed to be batting at the time Batting Out of Order is brought to the attention of the umpire is the player that is called out. If Zaun was supposed to have batted, then he is called out, and Hill, who batted out of order, is removed from the base for his illegal at bat. Make any sense yet?

This is what the rule says:

6.07 comment: There are two fundamentals to keep in mind: When a player bats out of turn, the proper batter is the player called out. If an improper batter bats and reaches base or is out and no appeal is made before a pitch to the next batter, or before any play or attempted play, that improper batter is considered to have batted in proper turn and establishes the order that is to follow.

Zaun is charged with an at bat according to the scoring rules (which we umpires really don't care much about anyway), the putout goes to the catcher, and everything to do with the improper batter (Hill) reaching base safely is ignored. See rule 10.03d