Batting out of order
 

OBR I know the basics of the BOO rule, but have a slightly different situation. This has not happened to me, but wondering.

A25 should be the batter, but A30 (who is not in the game)comes to the plate. He does not tell the umpire that he is pinch-hitting for A25, just gets in the box and singles. At this point what can the defense do? Is anyone out?

TIA

Mike51,

That's an "unannounced sub". If the sub had eligibility to enter and had not earlier batted in a different spot in the order, it's perfectly legal.

JM

And, even if he was not eligible to enter, it's still a sub. Under OBR (per the OP), the hit stands, the original player is out of the game, and the illegal sub is removed from base, a legal sub is put in.

If A30 is legally in the game, in that spot in the order it's nothing. Simply record the substitution. A substitution is completed and the player is considered as having entered the game when the manager or is designee notifies the plate umpire of the substitution. If no such notification is made, the player shall be considered as having entered the game when:

1. If a pitcher; he takes his place on the pitcher's plate prior to delivering a pitch
2. If a batter; he takes his place in the batter's box
3. If a fielder; he reaches the position usually occupied by the fielder has has replaced, and play commences
4. If a runner; he takes the place of the runner he has replaced

J08,your mention of the pitcher reminds of a scenario I have seen every now and then at the youth level (which usually plays some sort of modified OBR). Between innings, one of the other fielders may step on the rubber and pitch a warm-up pitch as a "joke." Twice I have had an opposing coach argue that the "new" pitcher must now pitch to the first batter and the "replaced" pitcher is done.

Both times I told the coach that 1) the ball was never made live, and 2) it would count against the regular pitcher's warmup time/pitches, but that was it.

Neither argued it more than that, though if pushed I was going to say the rules do allow the pitcher to go to another position once per inning and return, and they just did that, in effect. That doesn't address any requirement to pitch to another batter though.

Just wondering if there was another way to handle that.

In LL rules, technically the coaches were correct. In OBR just taking a position on the rubber is enough. It's probably one of those things you "didn't see" though.

In OBR/LL there is no provision (as there is in FED) that the ball be live on an unannounced pitching substitution.

You shouldn't count it against the pitcher's 8 warm-ups. The real pitcher gets 8 pitches or one munute.

In most 12U youth ball a pitcher who leaves pitching cannot return to pitch.

According to one of Luciano's books, this part was added the year after (I think it was) Billy Martin protested a game. It was when the DH rule had just come in and the opponent's DH went out to catch the pitcher's warm-up throws while the regular catcher was getting his gear on. Billy wanted the DH to be officially in the game at that point.

OK, here's one for you. OBR...

The # 3 hitter Johnny is up to bat with a 1-1 count. He takes strike 2 and the defensive manager goes out to talk to his pitcher. After he's done with his trip, there's a new batter at the plate, the # 4 hitter Billy. Apparently, Johnny believed he had struck out. Billy takes a strike when the defensive manager now brings this to the attention of the home plate umpire.

Have fun with this one!

Johnny's out (strike out on the first one Billy watched). Billy's up 0-0 count.

Why was that hard? What'd I miss here?

I didn't say it was hard--or easy, for that matter. BTW, I didn't have this. One of the guys I assign actually had this. He called me with the details.

No one noticed when the umpire gave the count after the visit? The batter (Billy) didn't question it when the umpire rang him up on "strike one"? The umpire didn't notice it after noting who was the batter during the visit?

Anyway, I agree with MIB's answer.

Apparently a sleepy-headed umpire was working this game.

You send an umpire who could allow this to happen out to work games?

Uh, yes. Lower level game with a young umpire who is otherwise pretty good. I doubt this would happen in one of the college games I assign.

Oh.

BTW, give the young man credit. In only his 2nd year with us--effectively his second year of umpiring--he made the same call MIB and my colleague Bob Jenkins would have made.

This young man is a player on Lewis University's baseball team (D2), and when he's not playing or practicing, he does games for us. He's also a catcher on Lewis's team, which, if you ask me, is a good thing. Many good umpires were once catchers. Must be all the shots to the head we've taken. :D

This is one of the very few Evans interpretations that I do not agree with. I follow the Roder - J/R interp for this situation.

This is not in response to the OP? Correct?

Would like more info on diff between JEA and J/R. I would be inclined to go with Evans.

Evans is working on his new Annotated...looking forward to that

Did not know but will buy if not arm and a leg cost.

You mean like his old $75 one? :D

If it's in that range, I'm a customer.

Ok let's use an example play:

R1, R2. An illegal sub enters the game and hits a bases clearing double. It is then discovered by the umpires that he is an illegal sub:

Roder's ruling: Call out the illegal sub and eject him. Return R1 and R2. The original player subbed for cannot re-enter.

Evan's ruling: The play stands despite the actions of the illegal sub. Both runs score. The illegal sub is ejected (not called out) and is replaced on base with a new sub.

I'm finding it difficult to understand the rationale behind the J/R interpretation insofar as calling the guy out. Now, maybe because I'm thinking along the lines of an unreported sub, which is different, or maybe because it's just late and I should be in bed. :D

What is Roder's basis for this ruling?

an unreported sub isn't necessarily an illegal sub correct?

True, and I understand the difference. Roder's ruling just seems more like what might be expected in Fed but not in NCAA or OBR. I do know that if you have an illegal sub who, say, improperly pinch runs for someone, when he's discovered he's ejected, but to call someone out as appears to be the recommendation by J/R seems odd.

So let's say you have someone from the bench who's an illegal sub, and he gets a double. If you call him out upon being discovered, how would you make that ruling? If Fred is an illegal sub who batted in the 8th spot for William (who's followed by Simon in the 9th spot), do you rule it a batting out of order? Do you rule William out on an unassisted putout and then have Simon come to bat? Or do you rule Fred out and have Simon come to bat? Interesting questions for OBR interps. here.

I don't think it's BOO unless it's truly BOO...an illegal sub is in X spot in the lineup...if that's illegal, we'd have BOO. We do agree that it's not illegal simply because the sub didn't report...we're talking a previous pinch hitter/runner, some type of DH situation where the DH should be terminated and he hits...something like that...

Don't have OBR w/ me today...will look tonight

Oh, I agree with the notion that it's not BOO. I was just throwing out questions for consideration, that's all. BOO can only be when one batter in the lineup bats in the wrong spot in the order, which we don't have here.

Let's make this illegal sub as follows:

In the 4th inning of an OBR game, Fred batted for William in a straight-up substitution situation. As we know, OBR doesn't allow for re-entry (no home rule exception here, btw), so William's done. In the 7th inning, Fred's supposed to be up, as he was the pinch hitter as stated. However, William comes up and doubles. Now we have an "illegal sub."

Roder's saying call William out and eject him. Evans is saying the double stands but William is ejected. If we follow the J/R ruling, how are we going to "classify" this? That's why I asked those questions above. I'm simply curious to see what the thinking of guys here might be.

Under the Evans interp...the amateur leagues that we work...it might be worth the risk if the hit and all runs that score would be upheld even though William's is illegally hitting...do you trade an ejection for a state championship? I know some adult teams that would do that...

Roder says there is no rule covering what happens if there is an illegal sub, so there should be a "punishment that fits the crime" essentially.

I like Roder's penalty personally since it's fair. Maybe ignore the "out" but still eject and put runners back.