BOO & Continuous Action

[UmpJM]

Gerry Blue,

If I'm the umpire...

1. Yes. The R2 is returned. His advance was not "during" the improper batter's at bat.

2. No. The defense has not lost its opportunity to appeal the BOOT.

JM

[mbyron]

JM: are you sure?

[UmpJM]

mbyron,

Not to the degree I'd like to be on #1.

But, pretty much, yes.

JM

[Dave Reed]

mbyron's implied ruling is correct: R2's advance stands.
6.07(b):
(b) 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.

NOTE: If a runner advances, while the improper batter is at bat, on a stolen base, balk, wild pitch or passed ball, such advance is legal.

b2 says a runner is returned if the advance was due to B/R's batted ball or advance to first base. Neither event occurred in the OP.

The Note is irrelevant since the AB had ended.

J?R clearly affirms this as the correct ruling but the MLBUM is worded ambigously.

[mbyron]

Thanks, Dave. I phrased my response as a question rather than assertion because I couldn't find anything definitive about the OP's play 1. As I read the rule, however, the principle seems to be to remove any advantage gained by the offense due to the actions of the improper batter, including advancing due to a walk. By the same token, the rule explicitly permits any advance due to the actions of the defense, such as a balk, wild pitch, etc.

The ambiguity in the rule concerns actions by the defense sufficient to advance the runner that occur after the batter's time at bat (and so not covered by the NOTE that Dave quotes). Since the BR is typically advancing at this time on a batted ball or a walk, do we invoke the principle denying advantage to the offense or allowing the defense to suffer the consequences of their mistake?

R1 advanced both due to the BB and the WP. Since either one would be sufficient to advance the runner, moving the runner back would not only being a denial of benefit from BOO but also an intervention in favor of the defense. I would allow the advance to stand.

Wish I had something authoritative, though. I looked through J/R's BOO cases (there's about 20), and didn't see anything perfectly apposite.

[UmpJM]

Dave Reed,

The notion of "causality" you suggest is a red herring and, ultimately, a futile pursuit.

The "Note" is absolutely relevant - because the advance did not occur "...while the improper batter was a t bat...", it does not stand.

There really is no penalty for batting out of turn - only for completing an out of turn at bat.

As I read the rule, the offense is not allowed to benefit from any action on the pitch/play during which the improper batter completes his at bat.

Advances which occur prior to the completion of the at bat (i.e. "while the improper batter is at bat") stand.

And no, I can't find anything "definitive" either. And I've looked.

JM

[bob jenkins]

Clearly in FED, UmpJM has the correct answer. A similar question was on the FED Part 1 exam this year.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

The "Note" is absolutely relevant - because the advance did not occur "...while the improper batter was a t bat...", it does not stand.

The discussion is trending against my position, so I'm not going to put up a fight. But THIS can't be the reason: from "if A then B" it does NOT follow that "if not A then not B." Surely the Jesuits taught you that.

So your ruling might be correct, but it is not entailed by your reasoning.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

There really is no penalty for batting out of turn - only for completing an out of turn at bat.

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?

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Gerry Blue,

If I'm the umpire...

1. Yes. The R2 is returned. His advance was not "during" the improper batter's at bat.

2. No. The defense has not lost its opportunity to appeal the BOOT.

JM

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by DG

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.

[UmpTTS43]

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

[greymule]

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 . . ."

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by greymule

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 . . ."

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

[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.

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.