BOO & Continuous Action

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Chris,

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". JM

I agree. I was paraphrasing bro.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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:

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. JM

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.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.JM

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.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.JM

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.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.) JM

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

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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?JM

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.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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?JM

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.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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

If you dream it, you can conceive it.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.)JM

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

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.JM

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.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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

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.

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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.

[UmpJM]

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

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

Yep, that FED question. Thanks Bob.

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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

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.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

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.

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.

Originally Posted by NCAA 7.11.a

2) If the improper batter becomes a base runner or is put out and an appeal is made to the umpire-in-chief before a pitch to the next batter of either team, or a play or attempted play, the proper batter is declared out and all runners return to bases held before action by the improper batter. However, any advances by a runner(s), (e.g., stolen base, balk, wild pitch, passed ball) while the improper batter is at bat are legal. If the proper batter is declared out, the next person in the lineup shall be the batter.

Originally Posted by OBR 6.07b

When an improper batter becomes a runner or is put out, and the defensive team appeals to the umpire before the first pitch to the next batter of either team, or before any play or attempted play, the umpire shall (1) declare the proper batter out; and (2) nullify any advance or score made because of a ball batted by the improper batter or because of the improper batter's advance to first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

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.

Chris,

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

JM

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

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.

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

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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.

[Chris Viverito]

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.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

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:

7-11-a2: ...and all runners return to bases held before action by the improper batter. However, any advances by a runner(s) (e.g., stolen base, balk, wild pitch, passed ball) while the improper batter is at bat are legal.

8-2-a: The batter becomes a base runner instantly after four balls have been called by the umpire.

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.

[greymule]

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

OBR BOO nightmare

[Chris Viverito]

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.