Just from the NFHS side: I don't have a problem returning R1 to TOP in OP1, but I'm not so sure about allowing an appeal following F2's play on R1 in OP2. If everybody else but me "gets it," please enlighten me.

I think "while he is at bat" is being taken too literally. I interpret this as a reference to when a runner advances because the IB is awarded a base or advances the runners on a batted ball. Literally - the runner should be returned. By interpretation - he does not.

That this is R2 advancing on a passed ball his advancement stands. If I am the umpire - I am not returning him. The IB did not advance him.

The FED definition of "play" is something like "Begins when the pitcher has the ball and ends when the pitcher next has the ball or the ball becomes dead"

JM,
What "causuality"? The OBR rule lists two penalties when an improper batter completes his at bat:
1) the proper batter is out.
2) any runners who had advanced by reason of the improper batter's batted ball, or were forced to advance, are returned to their original base.

Those are the only two penalties. In OP1, R2 wasn't forced, and there was no batted ball. Therefore, by rule he does not return.

To all---
FED and NCAA both return all runners who advanced after the improper batter had completed his time at bat. So in OP1, the runner would return if the game is played under NCAA or FED rules. OBR is different.

If that's how the FED (and state association) and NCAA want it called that is what I will do. I'd like to have a case reference for it or umpire supervisors directive though (edited spelling).

I still think it is a misinterpretation of the rules purpose. That is to keep runners from advancing when an IB advances them.

FED 7-1-1 "WHILE THE IMPROPER BATTER IS AT BAT, if a runner advances ..."

In the OP, the at-bat was over as soon as it was ball 4.

That is the confusion here Bob. The runner would be allowed to advance on any wild pitch (as per op1) except, Ball 4? The intent of the rule seems to say, a runner who advances because of a SB or a defensive screwup is allowed to advance but, not because of the advancement of the batter because of a hit or walk. This runner did not advance as a result of the batter becoming a runner. I don't see why the rules writers would make this rule without having the exception. If that is what was intended.

Nor do I see supporting documentation for the other rational. Fed only.

Perhaps because it's impossible to know if ball four affected the defense's response to the play. Catcher was slower retrieving the ball, a throw wasn't even attempted, etc. Rather than have the umpire decide whether the runner would have advanced anyway, they do it this way?

Reference please. Fed.

Sorry, can't. I have no idea what the actual rule says, you had asked why they do it that way. I'm assuming the rulings posted here are correct and was answering a "why" question rather than a "how" or "what."

Chris,

On the other hand, I don't think it's being taken litereally enough - at least by some people.

The causality implicit in phrases like "...by reason of.." and "...because of...".

And your paraphrase of the OBR rule is not exactly what it says, is it? Because a "batted ball" is in no way required, from the plain unambiguous text of the rule, in order to nullify a runner's advance. (i.e. ...because of the improper batter’s advance to first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise."

To me, the "because of" clause of the rule really just means "on a play where the batter completed his at bat". Of course, I can't "prove it".

I believe the OBR, NCAA, and FED rules are all identical with regard to nullifying other runner's advances, thought the wording IS slightly different.

JM

Yes, they do, and thanks.

Are we to accept that the NFHS is using their definition of "play" within the context of allowing a viable BOO appeal when they write, "...the defensive team appeals to the umpire before the first legal or illegal pitch, or, play or attempted play,...the umpire shall declare the proper batter out and return all runners to the base occupied at the time of the pitch."

I only ask to be sure, because I have always understood the term "play" within the context above as an act by the defense to make an out.

Just a question about this. Were the offense to correct the BOO prior to the end of the at bat, there'd be no penalty? So when B1 realizes he's batting out of order, he can request time, go back to the dugout and send in the proper batter and there'd be no problem? I presume the count remains whatever it is.

And if a BOO is HBP. Can this be appealed and declare the batter out?

I agree with that. I still have an issue with the interpretation.

Consider - same as in op. But this time R2 does not advance until he notices the pitcher and catcher in la-la land. Then takes 3rd without a throw. Then a BOO appeal. We sending him back there too?

Ok. So on that we disagree. I agree with that.