A Batting Out of Order Question

[BSUmp16]

Well, I guess if you say so, it must be true. If you want to be a blindly loyal, blissfully accepting follower, that is your right. But you don't have to be so defensive and insulting of people who choose to have their eyes and minds open to what the realities are.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Well, I guess if you say so, it must be true. If you want to be a blindly loyal, blissfully accepting follower, that is your right. But you don't have to be so defensive and insulting of people who choose to have their eyes and minds open to what the realities are.

UmpTTS43, is right.

Furthermore, why bring up a FED ruling when the OP was clearly asking for the NCAA interpretation of BOO? If you do, at least get your facts straight....

[BSUmp16]

I mentioned the FED rule because cookie originally brought it up in his September 23 post (see above). The "blindly loyal" quote is from UmpTTS43's personal quotes. I was trying to say that just because someone says its true, doesn't necessarily mean its true. I still have not seen anything official that contradicts the interpretation I've given. I agree I may be wrong, the FED Rule I cite is ambiguous. I'm not sure I can rely on "it is because we say so" as an official or even semi-official interpretation, especially when the rule itself says WHEN THE IMPROPER BATTER BECOMES A RUNNER OR IS PUT OUT... the umpire shall declare the proper batter out and return all runners to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.", which at least has the advantage of being consistent with both the OBR and NCAA rules. Again, I may be wrong, but "Because I said so" is not real convincing

[Rich Ives]

Most of us believe it means that the outs stand.

If that makes us "a blindly loyal, blissfully accepting follower" then so be it.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Well, I guess if you say so, it must be true. If you want to be a blindly loyal, blissfully accepting follower, that is your right. But you don't have to be so defensive and insulting of people who choose to have their eyes and minds open to what the realities are.

Where are there any insults?

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Well, I guess if you say so, it must be true. If you want to be a blindly loyal, blissfully accepting follower, that is your right. But you don't have to be so defensive and insulting of people who choose to have their eyes and minds open to what the realities are.

You are right, if I say so, it is true. The only loyal accepting follower you see is one that understands the rules and their applications.

If I was meant to be insulting, my post would have read something along the lines of this.

Dear BSUmp16,

I now see why you choose to use the BS in your ID along with your baseball IQ. You may think your mind and eyes are open, but you obvioulsy do not know what the realities are concerning this rule within different rule codes. Due to your ignorance concerning this matter, I can only imagine what you feel the "realities" are concerning other rules, both simplistic in nature such as this one, and the more complex. Please keep posting. I am often in need of a good laugh and I will feel free to use your commentary as my comic relief. By the way, you are wrong concerning the FED rule. Maybe you should read the rule book before you decide to express your opinions. The rule is 7-1-1. That would be Rule 7, section 1, article 1. Pg. 41, this follows page 40, in the FED 2010 rule book.

It's a good thing that I don't feel it is necessary to be insulting. I merely pointed out a fact that you do not accept as being true. Have a nice day.

[BSUmp16]

Look - I admit 2 things: The rule is ambiguous. I may be wrong. I'm just looking for some authoritative interpretation that says what you say the rule says it says. There is nothing definitive in the rule that says what you say it says. The Casebook doesn't have anything that supports your position (or disproves your position for that matter). Nothing in "Baseball Rules by Topic" (published by NFHS) supports your position. BRT says:

"When an improper batter becomes a runner or is put out and the defensive team appeals to the umpire before the first legal or illegal pitch, or play or attempted play, or prior to an intentional base on balls or before the infielders leave the diamond if a half-inning is ending, the umpire shall declare the proper batter out and return all runners to the base occupied at the time of the pitch."

Nowhere can I find that it says the penalty applies "except for runners called out during the improper batters time at bat.", which is what you are saying. Further, nothing in "Baseball Rules Simplified & Illustrated" (also published by NFHS) says what you say is the penalty.

All I am asking is that if the rule is universally interpreted the way you say it is, provide me some authority - any authority.

Finally, if you can't engage in a simple dialogue without resorting to personal insults, that's OK too, but if that's all you got, you don't got much.

[greymule]

I haven't done FED in several years, but as I recall there was no ambiguity about BOO. This from the 2006 BRD might help:

Play 65-83: R1, 0 out. Able should bat but Baker steps in and hits into a 6-4-3 double play. The umpire recognizes the appeal of the defense. Ruling: In FED, R1 remains out. Able is out, and Baker bats with the bases empty. In NCAA and OBR, R1 returns to 1B, Able is out, and Baker is the next batter.

Note 94: FED has had a tough time with BOO since they added the unannounced editorial change ("outs made on play stand") in 1991. For three glorious years the ruling in play 65-83 above would have been a triple play. Improper batter Baker hits into a double play. So: (1) the improper batter is out, (2) the runner on base is out, and (3) the proper batter is out. In 1994 they killed that possibility with: "An out for BOO supersedes an out by the improper batter on a play." (7-1-2b Ex)

[UmpTTS43]

Dear BSUmp16,

OK. Lets see what the rule book says. I'm going to open up the 2010 FED rule book, turn to page 41 and read Rule 7, Section 1, Article 1.

This is what is says.

Each player of the team at bat shall become the batter and shall take his position within a batter's box, on either side of home plate, in the order in which his name appears on the lineup card as delivered to the umpire prior to the game (4-1-3). This order shall be followed during the entire game except that an entering substitute shall take the replaced player's place in the batting order. A batter is in proper order if he follows the player whose name precedes his in the lineup, even though such preceding batter may have batted out of order. An improper batter is considered to be at bat as soon as he is in the batter's box and the ball is live. When the improper batter's infraction is first discovered by either team, time may be requested and the improper batter replaced by the proper batter with the improper batter's ball and strike count still in effect, provided the infraction is detected before the improper batter is put out or becomes a base runner. Only the defensive team may appeal batting out of order after the batter has completed his time at bat. Any outs made on the play stand. An out for batting out of order supersedes an out by the improper batter on a play. While the improper batter is at bat, if a runner advances because of a stolen base, balk, wild pitch or passed ball, such advance is legal.

WOW. Who would have thought that by actually reading the rule, not just the penalties section, one would have gotten the information needed to make a justifiable ruling?

[BSUmp16]

The reference you quote is to plays made during the time the improper batter is a batter and before he becomes a batter/runner. Of course an out for batting out of order supersedes an out by the improper batter on a play. No one ever disputed that. You can't just read one section though and ignore the other section. I could just as easily say the opposite of what you're saying by quoting only the penalty section.

I think graymule is on the right track. Apparently I too have had a tough time with BOO since they added the unannounced editorial change ("outs made on play stand"). I appreciate graymule's citation to authority. Thanks

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

The reference you quote is to plays made during the time the improper batter is a batter and before he becomes a batter/runner.

Where do you get this stuff?


"Only the defensive team may appeal batting out of order after the batter has completed his time at bat. Any outs made on the play stand."

I beginning to believe you are most aptly named, BS Ump.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

The reference you quote is to plays made during the time the improper batter is a batter and before he becomes a batter/runner.

The FED definition of "play" is something like "from the time F1 releases the ball until F1 has the ball back and action is relaxed."

So, in the context of this discussion, "outs on the play stand" means what we've been saying -- outs during the play following the improper batter hitting the ball stand.

If it meant what you imply, it would read "outs made during the improper batter's turn at bat stand"

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

The reference you quote is to plays made during the time the improper batter is a batter and before he becomes a batter/runner. Of course an out for batting out of order supersedes an out by the improper batter on a play. No one ever disputed that. You can't just read one section though and ignore the other section. I could just as easily say the opposite of what you're saying by quoting only the penalty section.

As other blindly loyal, blissfully accepting followers have stated, the outs made as a result of the improper batter becoming a batter runner stand.

Any outs made while the improper batter is at bat also stand, attempted stolen base, pickoff, etc. This is true in all three rule codes, FED, NCAA and OBR.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Look - I admit 2 things: The rule is ambiguous. I may be wrong.

I've come late to this party, and I can't tell for sure whether you're trolling or simply clueless. I (and every umpire I've ever met or talked to ... except you) read the following passage in the rulebook: "any outs made on the play stand" as a rather unambiguous direct statement that we construe to mean that ANY OUTS MADE ON THE PLAY STAND. If you can't take that statement, right there in the rulebook, as clear statement of FED's rule on the matter, I don't think anything else will help you. Perhaps attend a clinic, ask your supervisor, their supervisor, whatever.

Are you under the perception that in the hundreds of thousands of FED baseball games played in the last many many years, NO ONE has realized that every single one of us is calling it wrong? Seems rather unbelievable, doesn't it?

[BSUmp16]

Are you under the perception that in the hundreds of thousands of FED baseball games played in the last many many years, NO ONE has realized that every single one of us is calling it wrong? Seems rather unbelievable, doesn't it?

Yep - See above