OBR 3.06 & 3.07 vs 3.08

rbmartin · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 11, 2010, 09:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron

I can't tell you about Cal Ripken rules. In OBR, if a coach told me "12 for 24" and then I saw 24 immediately come to the plate, I'd stop the game and ask about it.

Quote:

6.07 (d2)...The umpire shall not direct the attention of any person to the presence in the batter's box of an improper batter.

Would the situation in the OP, in your opinion, be considered an improper batter and thus covered by rule 6.07 or is this a completely different animal? Keep in mind, the batter did resume his rightful place in the batting order.

Matt · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 11, 2010, 09:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Would the situation in the OP, in your opinion, be considered an improper batter and thus covered by rule 6.07 or is this a completely different animal? Keep in mind, the batter did resume his rightful place in the batting order.

An improper batter has to be in the lineup already.

When someone not in the lineup (in this case, the original starter) bats in place of someone, it is an issue of substitution.

Rich Ives · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 11, 2010, 09:31pm

It's an unreported sub. If y'all don't do youth ball and understand that re-entry is legal then butt out.

Matt · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Jul 11, 2010, 09:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

If y'all don't do youth ball and understand that re-entry is legal then butt out.

???

bob jenkins · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 12, 2010, 07:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It's an unreported sub. If y'all don't do youth ball and understand that re-entry is legal then butt out.

I don't see anyone who hasn't understood that, and whether re-entry ios legal or not, the OP is an issue of substitution, not of BOOT.

rbmartin · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 12, 2010, 09:18am

So what I'm getting from all the comments is that:
A) even though 3.06 was violated, 3.08 says there is no actual penalty.
B) maybe the umpire could have been more vigilant on when to accept the substitutions from the manager.
C) as long as nobody is BOOT, play on.

johnnyg08 · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 12, 2010, 11:35am

I got into it with a team last year about a legal unreported sub.

I said, that "yes, they should've told me" but there's no penalty if they don't and it's legal.

DG · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Jul 12, 2010, 10:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmartin

So what I'm getting from all the comments is that:
A) even though 3.06 was violated, 3.08 says there is no actual penalty.
B) maybe the umpire could have been more vigilant on when to accept the substitutions from the manager.
C) as long as nobody is BOOT, play on.

Yes, but remember that a substitute has been burned without actually participating.