I agree. I was paraphrasing bro.

That case is not in my 12th ed. But if it was I would say hooray for J/R. A runner forced to advance by an award to an IB is nullified if properly appealed.

Absurd? "The umpire must decide" makes perfect sense to me. I agree that it would be a difficult sell - but by the rule I can let Adams stay at 2d if I believe he would have gotten there on the WP.

That is not my argument. Mine is that the purpose of the rule is to keep runners from advancing by an IB batted ball or by being forced to advance by an IB award.

This is purely argumentative. It's not what the IB does...it's WHY are the runners are advancing.

No - again - it's not what the batter did. It's WHY are the runners advancing. Because they were forced to when the batter became a runner - they are returned upon successful BOO appeal.

Maybe it was. But...as your feeble attempt to be a wise cracker...it is irrelevant. It's not what the batter does...it's that the umpire does his job. :)

If you dream it, you can conceive it.

Simple. He's out. All outs that occur during the continuous action are upheld. Didn't you read the rule dude?

Again - I must disagree. I believe the cleanest and most consistent way to approach this is to look upon the rule for its purpose. Which I believe is to negate the advancement of runners when an IB bats the ball in play or forces them to advance due to an award.

That's cool guru. Good luck explaining that on the field.

Until proven otherwise I will allow runners to advance unless the IB advances them on a batted ball or by forcing them to advance by an award AND the BOO is properly appealed.

JM - leave it to you my friend.

One last point...at any other time 'during' the at bat the runners would be allowed their advancement on a WP for ball 1, 2, or 3. So - why (other than the word 'during') would they be returned on ball 4?

Stir it up bro.

I like answer 'e' the best.

Well there it is. Definitive proof on the Fed test. I did not know there was a difference from the IHSA test.

So - with that I say the Fed (and I am assuming the IHSA) have also made the mistake of misinterpreting the rule for it's purpose and want us to call it their way. Which is what I will do since that is indeed the case. Still...I think they need to look closely at this...aside from the obvious...here's why...

From the 2008 Baseball Rules By Topic, copyright 2007, NFHS. Page 123. 7.1.1 SITUATION D:

With R1 on third and two outs, improper batter B5 appears at bat. During F1's wind-up, R1 breaks for home base and beats the pitch there, and is called safe by the umpire. The pitch is not strike three or ball four. The team on the field then realizes that B5 is an improper batter and calls it to the attention of the umpire. RULING: The proper batter shall take his place at the plate with B5's accumulated ball and strike count. The run scored by R1 counts. The activity of the improper batter B5 did not assist nor advance R1. The advance was made on merit. Of course, if the pitch to improper batter B5 had been strike three and the catcher either caught the ball or threw out B5 before he reached first base, then R1's run would not count.

This is another case that clearly supports that the FED wants us to take the word 'during' literally and return the runner. But the ideology seems to be inconsistent. Why is merit not considered after ball 4 or strike 3? Because, I believe, the word 'during' is being taken too literally. I could make an argument that they are adding a penalty for BOO...but that is also inconsistent because runners are allowed to advance on merit on every other pitch.

As for now though - it appears that I am wrong - in FED. So far my OBR research hasn't turned up anything to make it such, and the vote among contacts has been unanimous for 'the runner stays'. NCAA - not much yet but I am working on that too.

My intent here is to clarify how the Fed, IHSA, NCAA, and OBR codes want us to rule.

Chris,

If you were to actually read the rules, you would see that it is unequivocal and crystal clear that:

1. For Fed and NCAA ANY advances on the pitch/play during which the improper batter completed his at bat are nullified if the defense properly appeals.

2. For NCAA and OBR ANY outs obtained by the defense on the play/pitch during which the improper batter completed his at bat are nullified if the defense properly appeals, with the proper batter's out superseding that of the improper batter had he been put out on the play.

3. As I said earlier in the thread, there is NEVER any penalty for "starting" an at bat with an improper batter under ANY of the three rule codes.. As all three rule codes clearly and unequivocally state, all advances and outs made during the improper batter's at bat stand.

4. There is ALWAYS a penalty for COMPLETING an at bat with an improper batter (if properly appealed). There is enough ambiguity for "reasonable people" to disagree, for OBR only, if that includes the "return" of a non-forced runner who advances when the at bat ends on a WP or PB.

Yes, I'm sure.

5. Who, pray tell, are your "contacts", and why would anyone find their collective opinion "persuasive"?

JM

Yep, that FED question. Thanks Bob.

Now JM - that's rather rude. I think you are way out of line brotha. If it was unequivocally clear we would not be having this discussion. You yourself said you weren't sure...and until I provided you with actual research and solid information, and all you had was a theoretical persepective based on literal interpretation. Only now that I have done the work for you are you "sure". Shameful.

We are on the same team and I will not hold your irrational responses against you. But I find them also to be opportunistic and unproductive. It is also pretentious and unreasonable.

Who my contacts are is none of your business. I have no intention of dropping names on you to prove a point. That they are many in number IS relevant in pointing out that the rule is not written unequivocally crystal clear.

Again - you are way out of line.

In both NCAA and OBR, you enforce the BOO and put runners back to their last position when the batter runner became a runner. Outs are nullified. I don't see how you can reach any other conclusion after reading the rules. The NCAA and OBR want the rulings enforced as written.

Chris,

You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you?

JM

Hello Pot... Meet Kettle.
(You were the one that started the unnecessary nonsense, calling him Bro, Dude, Brutha, whatever.)

Uhhh...dude, bro, brutha...I call all my friends by those names. It's a term of endearment. All my buddies know that.

So it is the obligation of others who are not your "buddies" to know your intent? That sounds like the thinking of an 8th grader.

Chris and UmpJM are members of the same association. The comments were in jest.

No, you (and others) wouldn't have known. That's why mbyron asked and Chris answered.

Just an update - I contacted the NCAA for the proper ruling in this sitch.

For NCAA - call the proper batter out, get the next batter in the box and allow the advance, because the IB did not advance the runner with a batted ball or by his award.

More to come.

I disagree with them:

If the batter instantly becomes a runner, then anything that happens after that point is nullified with a successful BOO appeal. Therefore, any advance after the pitch is ruled ball four should be nullified.

Here is a relevant thread from 5 years ago. (OBR only, however.)

http://forum.officiating.com/basebal...nightmare.html

Additional info. The OBR ruling was confirmed by over a dozen active pro's. Leave the runner at 3rd. The IB did not advance him.

More to come on the proper NFHS ruling.