BOO & Continuous Action

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

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

Which happened first, ball 4 or the WP.

Answer: Ball 4 because it was past the plate, thus ball 4 before it went by the catcher to become a WP.

Therfore in ANY rules the batter was now a runner on no longer at bat.

OBR
6.04 A batter has legally completed his time at bat when he is put out or becomes a runner.

6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—
(a) Four “balls” have been called by the umpire;

NCAA
Rule 8 SECTION 2. The batter becomes a base runner:

b. Instantly after four balls have been called by the umpire;


FED
8-1-1-c

Synopsis: Batter becomes a runner on ball 4.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

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?

Yes. 7-1-2 Pen 2: "When an improper batter becomes a runner ... and the defensive team appeals ... return all runners to the base occupied at the time of the pitch."

This play has been discussed since Al Gore invented the interwebs, with the usual points made on both sides.

You can argue what the rule *should be* but, at least in FED, it's clear what the rule *is*.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Which happened first, ball 4 or the WP.

Answer: Ball 4 because it was past the plate, thus ball 4 before it went by the catcher to become a WP.

Therfore in ANY rules the batter was now a runner on no longer at bat.

Synopsis: Batter becomes a runner on ball 4.

You can take this even further by looking at the various definitions of wild pitch - all of which will tell you that a pitch is not a wild pitch unless and until someone advances a base on it. So not only is this runner's advance part of action that occurred after batter became batter-runner... but the wild pitch wasn't even a wild pitch until the runner advanced.

[jicecone]

Ok, I can buy off on it.

[johnnyg08]

There was a part I FED question about a play like this. You would return the runner because the runner scored at the same time the BOO became a runner.

[Chris Viverito]

If this is a 'rule this way until they change the wording' issue - I get that. Either way, I would like to note:

J/R 2008 ed. Pg 65. B (2) "Defense appeals at correct time: ...If the defense appeals BOO after an improper batter has completed his time at bat...before subsequent pitch, or post continuous action play, then the following penalties are enforced:

Any runner who advanced because of the improper batter's batted ball or award must return to his TOP base. A runner who advanced for some other or additional reason (wild pick-off throw, overthrow, wild-pitch, balk) is allowed his advance."

Seems pretty clear to me. Runner stays at 3rd.

[UmpTTS43]

Seems pretty clear that J/R is WRONG yet again.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Seems pretty clear that J/R is WRONG yet again.

Actually, it doesn't (though J/R might be wrong -- I'm not disputing that). It seems from what Chris quotes that J/R simply propagates the existing ambiguity in OBR.

I think that the principle of allowing a runner to advance during an improper batter's time at bat but not once he has become a runner is fair and clear. That's the principle that's implicit in FED and NCAA, and probably what OBR means to say.

I think of it this way: until he becomes a runner, the improper batter might be replaced by the proper batter. So any advance during that time should stand. But once the improper batter becomes a runner, even if there's a WP on ball 4, we're going to send runners back. That's part of the penalty for BOO.

[Chris Viverito]

I disagree. The penalty for BOO is to call the PB out and return runners who advanced on the IB's award or batted ball.

Wild-pitches, balks, errant pick-off throws are all excluded from that penalty.

I know - 'during' his time at bat. This is the mistake. That wild pitch is still a pitch until...you know.

[jicecone]

I bought off on this because I have nevr in 25 years had it happen and don't expect it too. I know, never say never.

What I did find interesing was Case paly 7.1.1 Sit D though. R1 steals home. The sit. specifically says the the pitch is not strike three or ball four. Then in the ruling it discusses what would happen if it was strike three (obvious) but, then coincidently leaves out any discussion about ball four.

Some may say it is obvious also but, we will never know.

I am still willing to settle for ambiquious and leave at that, and deal with it, if and when it ever happens.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

If this is a 'rule this way until they change the wording' issue - I get that. Either way, I would like to note:

J/R 2008 ed. Pg 65. B (2) "Defense appeals at correct time: ...If the defense appeals BOO after an improper batter has completed his time at bat...before subsequent pitch, or post continuous action play, then the following penalties are enforced:

Any runner who advanced because of the improper batter's batted ball or award must return to his TOP base. A runner who advanced for some other or additional reason (wild pick-off throw, overthrow, wild-pitch, balk) is allowed his advance."

Seems pretty clear to me. Runner stays at 3rd.

I agree that the "authorities" differ on OBR. I thought we were (and I was) discussing FED.

[UmpJM]

Chris,

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

I disagree. The penalty for BOO is to call the PB out and return runners who advanced on the IB's award or batted ball.

Wild-pitches, balks, errant pick-off throws are all excluded from that penalty.

I know - 'during' his time at bat. This is the mistake. That wild pitch is still a pitch until...you know.

That is not what the rule actually says. In the actual rule, at the end, there is the intriguing use of the phrase "...or otherwise".

While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Roder, and believe he has likely already forgotten more than I will ever know about umpiring, someone on a long-ago thread touching on the same question posted a BOOT "case play" from the J/R which included the following:

...The umpire must decide whether Adams’ advance was due to King’s award or due to the wildness of the pitch (i.e., would Adams have advanced if the pitch had been ball three?). ...

I don't know if the case play is still there in more current editions of the J/R or not. But, in this one, "Adams" was a "forced runner" who advanced to 2B on a ball 4/wild pitch to an improper batter, which the defense then successfully appealed.

Upon reflection, I found the notion that "the umpire must decide.." whether Adams' advance was due to his award or the wild pitch to be patently absurd.

And it reflects my issue with the notion of "causality" implicit in the position held by you and others that it is the "effect" of the batter's specific "action" on the runner's advance that is material.

I mean, if the batter gets a walk and forced runners advance, what did the batter actually do. He just stood there and "took the pitch". It was really more the pitcher who did all the "work". (Well, and the umpire, of course.)

Let's say an improper batter hits an "easy triple play ball" that the F5 boots the crap out of, allowing everybody to advance. Was it really the batter's action that the runners' advances are "due to", or the multiple errors made by F5?

Or, as in the OP, an "unforced" R3 scores on a WP ball 4 or U3K. How do you know that the WP wasn't "due to" the intimidating presence of the improper batter under the stressful conditions of a full count?

You don't. It's impossible to judge (at least in some cases) with any degree of consistency.

What would you do with the R3 if, instead of scoring, he were thrown out at the plate? (Yeah, I know, who in their right mind would appeal that? Let's just say they did.)

The only "clean" and "consistent" interpretation is that REGARDLESS of how the batter completed his at bat, and who did what to whom, is to treat all advances on the play the same. They either stand if not appealed or they are nullified upon appeal.

Until proven otherwise, that's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

JM

[Suudy]

Something I'm not clear on with regard to BOO. Take this sit:

R3, 1-1 count, and a) 2 outs, b) 0 or 1 out. On a WP, R3 advances and scores. After R3 scores, B1's coach realizes B1 is BOO. The coach corrects the BOO and sends in the correct batter.

Does the run stand? There's in effect no penalty for BOO if corrected before the at bat completes?

Also, with regard to when the at-bat ends. Say R3, 1-2 count, and a) 2 outs, b) 0 or 1 out. B1 swings and misses, and the ball gets by F2. R3 advances and scores, and B1 is safe at first. Does the at bat end on the third strike as well?

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree that the "authorities" differ on OBR. I thought we were (and I was) discussing FED.

I am discussing FED. And NCAA and OBR. Several mentions re: NCAA and OBR have been brought up in this discussion as well. J/R would detail a rules difference for both if they are aware of it. I understand their 'authority' does not necessarily extend to that, and that their authority is certainly a perceived one, not an official one. I am not suggesting the reference is an authority. Just that it is a solid reference to "clearly define baseball concepts taken for granted", and that the text clearly is in contrast to the 'runners return' argument.

Sure - the J/R manual can be wrong. The Fed test's can and have been wrong too. Obviously - my intent here is to discover what is 'right' and dispel the rumor or misconception for good. I know...'good luck'

From my own study and interpretation I do not conclude differently from any of the three codes. Specifically - if the FED and NCAA want it called differently they should make an open and specific case play or directive to dispel the perceived myth and/or debate.

Several mentions have been made that the Fed part 1 test had a similar question and the answer supports the 'runners return' position. I am not disputing that it exists, but I would like to see it. I do not see it in the 50 questions posed for 2011. Is it somewhere else?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

Several mentions have been made that the Fed part 1 test had a similar question and the answer supports the 'runners return' position. I am not disputing that it exists, but I would like to see it. I do not see it in the 50 questions posed for 2011. Is it somewhere else?

Remember that the IHSA test is NOT the same as the FED test.

Fed Part 1, #75: R3, no outs. B4 is batting in place of B3. As B4 takes a called third strike, R1 safely steals home as the ball gets past the catcher. There was no interference on the part of B4. B4 safely makes it to first base. Before the next pitch, the defense appeals BOO. U1 will:

a. Send the runenr back to third
b. Call out B3 and have B4 bat again
c. Count the run and call out B3.
d. Both a and b.
e. Secretly vow never to work either team again.

The correct answer is D, with references of 7-1-1 and 7-1-2 penalty 2.