1. I think R2 advanced on a wild pitch that was delivered while the batter was at bat.

The pitch was delivered (released) while the batter was still at bat. But the pitch was not wild until after it was ball 4.

If the batter had an 0-2 count would you allow an advance on a D3K where the ball gets away?

If the batter had an 0-2 count would you allow an advance on a D3K where the ball gets away?

The way I understand it:

Yes, if the runner clearly advanced on the pitch that got away, say, to the screen or into DBT. No, if the ball stayed close to F2 and the runner advanced on the play to 1B to get the BR.

"The umpire must determine . . ."

Not sure whom you were asking, but no. As you know, the advance did not occur during the improper batter's time at bat, which any allowable advance would have to do.

But one might think that the rule should be built around distinguishing between a runner's advance that's earned by the actions of the improper batter and one that's yielded by the actions of the defense.

One way to understand the rule is that the improper batter has no right to become a runner, and so any advance that occurs while he's a runner should be nullified, even if it's due to a wild pitch or D3K (upon proper appeal, of course).

Well put. I agree in FED. I want to understand the FED thinking on this. I have heard many theories but can't place my finger on which one is correct.

greymule,

The problem I have with that is, what if, instead of the R3 advancing and scoring on the WP, he were thrown out at the plate. The defense appeals the BOOT.

In OBR and NCAA, the out at home is nullified and the runner is put back on 3B. (In FED only, that out would stand even with the BOOT appeal).

So, if we allow the advance but nullify the out, we allow the offense to benefit from doing something illegal, but do not allow the defense to benefit when the offense did something illegal.

That doesn't make "baseball sense".

You will also notice that in ALL of the OBR case plays (Rule Book, MLBUM, JEA, J/R, BRD) which have a runner's advance "stand" following a BOOT appeal, the advance ALWAYS occurs before the batter completes his at bat. While that doesn't PROVE anything, it is supportive of the notion that the rule means exactly what it says. That advances (or outs) that occur during the improper at bat stand, while those that occur on the pitch/play that completed the improper at bat are nullified.

Now I happen to know that Chris's NCAA source is "unimpeachable" - but I still believe he's wrong.

JM

The problem I have with that is, what if, instead of the R3 advancing and scoring on the WP, he were thrown out at the plate. The defense appeals the BOOT.

In OBR and NCAA, the out at home is nullified and the runner is put back on 3B.

I admit I hadn't considered the case of the runner being put out. However, are we certain that in OBR the out doesn't stand?

If in fact, after a successful appeal on an improper batter, all advances or putouts that occurred on the pitch on which the improper batter became a runner are nullified, then why does the OBR book go unto such detail about the possibilities of advancing? The rule could say simply, ". . . the umpire shall (1) declare the proper batter out; and (2) return all runners to the base occupied TOP."

And why would the book spend time and space on nullifying only advances made specifically as a result of the improper batter's batted ball or advance to 1B, and then follow with a note giving some examples of legal advances not resulting from a batted ball or an advance to 1B?

Of course these are merely my inferences; the way the rule is written seems to imply these things, and as with many other rules, its language is somewhat ambiguous.

Too bad the "Approved Rulings" on the next page don't give give an example, say, of ball 4 to an improper batter entering DBT with a runner on. A couple of the rulings listed are obvious and hardly need to be mentioned.

greymule,

I am reasonably certain that, other than in FED, if the defense properly appeals the BOOT, any outs made on the play are nullified.

This is what the MLBUM says in the section on BOOT:

I find the wording of the rule text somewhat ambiguous as well, and have no idea why it is worded the way it is.

I believe the rule "means" what mbyron suggests in his post above.

You will observe that the "6.07(b) Note" giving examples of advances that would stand ONLY includes things that could happen while the improper batter remains a batter.

The text of 6.07 that talks about advances that are to be nullified I believe is meant to be an exhaustive list of ALL the ways a batter might possibly complete his at bat ("or otherwise" makes it comprehensive - I can only come up with U3K & CI as the only two things covered by "or otherwise") rather than a suggestion that the umpire judge whether the "batter's action" caused the advance or the runner advanced for some "other" reason.

To me that is the interpretation most consistent with the text of the rules and the collective interpretation manuals.

JM

I find the wording of the rule text somewhat ambiguous as well, and have no idea why it is worded the way it is.

It could be because the book has been constructed piecemeal over a century, with notes and addenda and rulings tacked on instead of incorporated into the fabric of the document, and otherwise violates principles of effective written communication. If it were a legal publication, it would have to be recast from beginning to end.

The MLBUM provides another example:

"Any advance or outs made because of an improper batter becoming a runner would be nullified . . ."

Did the writers of the MLBUM choose their words with care, or would after an improper batter becomes a runner be closer to what they really mean? After all, when R3 scores after ball 4 to an improper batter enters DBT, then R3 scored merely after the improper batter became a runner, but not "because of an improper batter becoming a runner."

You may very well be correct in your interpretation. Certainly there's plenty of evidence in its favor. And maybe I'm reading too much into something that simply isn't that carefully written.

Not true for the 2004 edition of J/R:

In the bottom of the seventh, there are no outs, Adams is at first base, and Leo is due to bat. However, King steps into the box. A pitch is ball four and goes wild past the catcher. The catcher retrieves the ball and throws to the first baseman for an unsuccessful play on the batter-runner (King), who has rounded first base. The defense appeals that the offense has batted out of order:

The catcher's throw was a part of the continuous action, and should not be interpreted as a post-continuous action play, and the appeal can be sustained. The proper batter (Leo) is out. King is removed from first base. The umpire must decide if 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?). Adams is allowed to remain at second base with one out and Cooper is the proper batter. [This case play is part of a continued narrative, which explains how Cooper shows up.]

Dave,

That is precisely the case play I cited in post #42 on this thread earlier. I am quite familiar with it. I understand Roder has "rescinded" it in the sense that it no longer appears in more current versions.

JM

Well, at least I posted the entire case. Perhaps it is more recognizable that way.

"Rescinded"? Are you suggesting that Roder pulled the case because it was wrong?

True - the source is unimpeachable. You read the e-mail from the source. I think it is safe to say that the NCAA wants us to allow such advances. To suggest or instruct otherwise is an intentional contradiction to what the NCAA wants us to rule. In other words - an umpire who rules against what the organization wants will likely lose in an official protest.