Batting Out of Order
 

OK, this is going to be a VERY hypothetical situation, but I could see it happening at lower levels.

FED Rules:
Batting order is B1, B2, B3,....B9.

B2 bats in the spot of B1 and advances to first base. A legal/illegal pitch occurs to B3 so now B2's actions are legalized (7-1-2 PENALTY 3,5). This happens a few times in the order and now B2's batting spot is due up again, but B2 is sitting on third base. Who gets to bat in B2's spot?

If this is too confusing, I'm mostly looking at the note after 7-1-2 which states:

When several players bat out of order before discovery is made so that a player's time at bat occurs while he is a runner, such player remains on base, but he is NOT out as a batter.

Thanks,
Aaron

Assuming that the previous batter was legal (probably B1?), B3 is the proper batter if B2 is still on base.

This isn't possible. It would take one advancement to get him to third (B4 singles, let's say). Two outs (B5 and B6). On the next play, he'll either score or the inning is over.

Correct. But what if there are numerous batters who bat out of order in an inning?

I guess I'm just really looking for clarification on this note:

When several players bat out of order before discovery is made so that a player's time at bat occurs while he is a runner, such player remains on base, but he is NOT out as a batter.

The answer that "his spot is skipped" is correct.

Change your original play so B3 bats in place of B1 and singles. B2 bats and flies out. B3 is due up, but is on base. His spot is skipped and B4 becomes the correct batter.

Thank you, that makes much more sense. I'll have to read through that rule again later.

Just a minor thought here, but this is only true after B4 takes a pitch. B4 was the correct batter after B2 took a pitch.
________
Medical Marijuana

As soon as B2 took a pitch, it legitimized B3's at bat. Although B2 is up, B4 is the next legal batter. If the defense appeals while B2 is at bat, B2 is replaced with B4 with the current count. If, after B2 makes an out or reaches base and prior to the first pitch to B4 (in this sitch), B2's out is nullified or he is removed from the base path and all other runners return to their last base occupied at the start of B2's at bat. However, if a baserunner advances due to a stolen base, passed ball, balk, that runner gets to keep that base. Once B2's result is nullified, the proper batter is now called out, in this case B4, and B5 is now the next proper batter.

Did I confuse everyone?:eek:

In OBR and NCAA all outs are nullified when the improper batter is successfully appealed. In FED, I believe that any and all outs that were a result of the improper batter's at-bat stay in addition the the proper batter being called out.

Hope this ........... helps.:D

Without the book infront of me, I believe if this is properly appealed, the defensive team has the option of taking the out for batting out of order, or the result of the play. So if there's a double-play at third and second, the defense can choose to take those two outs and keep the batter at first.

Yes, this is very confusing...that's why I'm trying to get it right. I could see this as being something coaches could/would protest.

There is no option once the appeal has been made. If the defense wanted to keep any resulting outs, such as a double play, they should not have appealed. Once the appeal is recognzed, the penalties are enforced. On the same note, the defense cannot "unappeal." I believe the rule states that once the defense appeals or the umpire realizes the infraction, it must be enforced. Same is true if the offense says something. Once they bring a BOO situation to the umpire, corrective action must take place.

The ONLY time a team has an option on a rule violation, is on catcher interference with a batter on a batted ball. And this is only if the BR and all other runners fail to advance one base.

UmpTTS43,

I would agree with your point that once the defense appeals a BOOT, they cannoy "unappeal" it. I believe the offense has no "standing" to appeal a BOOT and that the umpire does nothing, even should he realize a BOOT occurred, until the defense appeals.

Oh, and you've got 50% of the times the offended team has an "option" to take the penalty or the result of the play (under OBR rules).

JM

aschramm,
I see that you highlighted the FED part. You may be correct in saying that the defense can choose. I do not know.

CoachJM,
I agree that the offense has no "standing" in calling BOO. By rule, once the umpire realizes the infraction, he should enforce it. When I have had this situation, I have told the offensive coach, no you cannot .... This usually will key off the defense for the appeal. I, personally, would not enforce the BOO if the defense did not appeal.

What did I miss JM on the option thingy? Can't I always be right?:D

Yep, sorry if I didn't point that out. I'm just looking for FED rule references. Thanks!!

TTUmp,

The difference in FED is that even if the defense does properly appeal a BOOT, any outs made on the play stand and only advances due to the improper batter's completion of his at bat are nullified. Under OBR & NCAA, both outs and advances are nullified.

So, in FED, if an improper batter hits into a double play, the 2 outs stand, and any advances are "reset". Under OBR & NCAA, the 2 outs on the play would be "replaced" by the one out declared on the proper batter. In FED, you kinf of get to "have your cake and eat it too".

For the other OBR "manager's option", see the oft-overlooked 8.02(a) Penalty.

Oh, and there's yet another "manager's option" in FED that does not exist in OBR.

JM

Oooh yes, the ol' 8.02(a) penalty. And I get to use that one so often. If I ever had a coach take the option on that one, I'd kiss his cleats. Thanks for the reminder.

Enlighten me on FED, since I rarely have to go there.

Would that be the illegal glove option?

Yes - and there's still one more...anyone, anyone???

Define illegal glove.

LLBob,

There certainly is...

I would go with the definition(s) found in FED 1-3-6 - though in the context of this discussion, the color constraints for a pitcher's glove are not relevant.

JM

The umpire should never draw attention to BOO. Let the defense do it, or not. I was on bases for a Legion game last summer when the first batter in an inning grounded out. The offensive coach came out, there was a discussion with PU and then he announced 2 outs. I called time to find out how we can have one batter and 2 outs. I explained to my partner that it was impossible to have one batter and two outs. Defensive coach came out and said he knew about the BOO but he will take the play, so we left it alone. Apparently, a good hitter was missed. And, defensive coach was ok with 2 outs also, since he did not question, or maybe he did not notice that 2 outs had been called. I expect he knew better.

So you had 1 out, your partner had 2 outs, and you decided to say in front of everybody that you disagreed with your partner having 2 outs? It sounds to me like you showed your partner up in front of everybody.

You're kidding, right? That's called getting the call right and helping to overturn a stupid call by his partner, not showing him up. The way I read this, DG called Time and conferenced privately with his partner to show him the error of his ways. I don't think he got a megaphone out and announced his partner's stupidity to the crowd. What would you have done, smart guy?

I wouldn't have over-ruled my partner. If he felt a BOO called for two outs, I would live with that until he came to me and asked me. Then I would have told him that there is only one out in this situation. A partner cannot overrule another partner. Even if he conferences privately, everyone will still realize that he is trying to over-rule his partner.

It's a rules issue. I'd go to him and try to convince him of the correct rule.

I *think* that some versions of softball allow two outs on this play. Maybe that's why some of the partipants were confused.

I *think* that some versions of softball allow two outs on this play.

ASA, Fed, and NCAA all differ in how they deal with BOO.

Example:

B1 singles. B3 hits into a double play. Defense appeals that B2 should have batted.

ASA: Double play counts, B2 out for failing to bat in proper order. Three outs, B4 leads off next inning. (Two batters, three outs.)

Fed [unless they have changed their rule since 2002]: Runner (B1) out on the force at 2B. B2 out for failing to bat in the proper order. Two outs. B3 bats again.

NCAA follows OBR: B2 out, B1 returns to 1B, B3 bats again.

There are other differences: bases loaded, B5 bats instead of B4. Ball 4 to B5 is in the dirt and bounces off F2's shinguard and into DBT. Defense appeals that B4 should have batted. In ASA, B4 is out, runners return TOP, and B5 bats again. In NCAA, B4 is out, but the runners are still awarded a base on the ball entering DBT. B5 now bats. (I don't know how Fed would rule on that play.)

I doubt that many of you do YSISF, but they have their own unique rule set for BOO. Very severe penalties for violations.

But where is the example that DG stated, where it was the first batter of the inning who grounded out that batted out of order? I can't imagine more than one out awarded in any code. Please someone give an example of when there can be two outs called for the wrong leadoff batter.

But where is the example that DG stated, where it was the first batter of the inning who grounded out that batted out of order? I can't imagine more than one out awarded in any code. Please someone give an example of when there can be two outs called for the wrong leadoff batter.

In the Legion play that DG mentioned, the ruling was incorrect. The coach, knowing the rule and aware of the BOO, knew that he should wait and see what happens and then decide whether or not to appeal. (Such a situation occurred in a Mets-Pirates game decades ago, where the Mets let the Pirates bat out of order twice, but appealed the third time around when the batter got a double.) In DG's play, we never learned which number batter failed to bat in the proper order, but the ruling should have been proper batter out, play doesn't count, next batter is the one who follows the one who failed to bat when he should have.

But the ruling would have been correct in ASA: B5 is supposed to lead off the inning, but B6 bats and makes an out. The defense appeals. The out by B6 stands, and B5 is also out. One batter, two outs, B7 now bats. (Note: In ASA, it is always to the defense's advantage to appeal BOO. There can never be any negative consequences, never a decision to be made about which option is better. Note also that if B7 had batted when B5 was supposed to, and B7 made an out, then B7's out would stand, B5 would be out, and B6 would then bat, followed by B7. So if B6 gets on base, B7 could go 0 for 2 in an inning that saw only 3 batters.)

This cannot happen in Fed or NCAA softball, nor can it happen in OBR. All three codes would call the above play the same: B5 out, B6's out doesn't count, B6 bats again. I'm not sure about Fed baseball. I thought it followed Fed softball, but I'm not sure and haven't done Fed baseball or softball since 2002.