BOO & Continuous Action

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

jicecone,

According to the OP, the R2 did NOT advance during the improper batter's at bat.

He advanced after the improper batter had completed his at bat and had become a runner.

Yes, on that point, I am absolutely "certain sure".

JM

I think "while he is at bat" is being taken too literally. I interpret this as a reference to when a runner advances because the IB is awarded a base or advances the runners on a batted ball. Literally - the runner should be returned. By interpretation - he does not.

That this is R2 advancing on a passed ball his advancement stands. If I am the umpire - I am not returning him. The IB did not advance him.

[Dave Reed]

JM,
What "causuality"? The OBR rule lists two penalties when an improper batter completes his at bat:
1) the proper batter is out.
2) any runners who had advanced by reason of the improper batter's batted ball, or were forced to advance, are returned to their original base.

Those are the only two penalties. In OP1, R2 wasn't forced, and there was no batted ball. Therefore, by rule he does not return.

To all---
FED and NCAA both return all runners who advanced after the improper batter had completed his time at bat. So in OP1, the runner would return if the game is played under NCAA or FED rules. OBR is different.

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

To all---
FED and NCAA both return all runners who advanced after the improper batter had completed his time at bat. So in OP1, the runner would return if the game is played under NCAA or FED rules. OBR is different.

If that's how the FED (and state association) and NCAA want it called that is what I will do. I'd like to have a case reference for it or umpire supervisors directive though (edited spelling).

I still think it is a misinterpretation of the rules purpose. That is to keep runners from advancing when an IB advances them.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

If that's how the FED (and state association) and NCAA want it called that is what I will do. I'd like to have a case reference for it or umpire supervisors directive though (edited spelling).

I still think it is a misinterpretation of the rules purpose. That is to keep runners from advancing when an IB advances them.

FED 7-1-1 "WHILE THE IMPROPER BATTER IS AT BAT, if a runner advances ..."

In the OP, the at-bat was over as soon as it was ball 4.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FED 7-1-1 "WHILE THE IMPROPER BATTER IS AT BAT, if a runner advances ..."

In the OP, the at-bat was over as soon as it was ball 4.

That is the confusion here Bob. The runner would be allowed to advance on any wild pitch (as per op1) except, Ball 4? The intent of the rule seems to say, a runner who advances because of a SB or a defensive screwup is allowed to advance but, not because of the advancement of the batter because of a hit or walk. This runner did not advance as a result of the batter becoming a runner. I don't see why the rules writers would make this rule without having the exception. If that is what was intended.

Nor do I see supporting documentation for the other rational. Fed only.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jicecone

That is the confusion here Bob. The runner would be allowed to advance on any wild pitch (as per op1) except, Ball 4? The intent of the rule seems to say, a runner who advances because of a SB or a defensive screwup is allowed to advance but, not because of the advancement of the batter because of a hit or walk. This runner did not advance as a result of the batter becoming a runner. I don't see why the rules writers would make this rule without having the exception. If that is what was intended.

Nor do I see supporting documentation for the other rational. Fed only.

Perhaps because it's impossible to know if ball four affected the defense's response to the play. Catcher was slower retrieving the ball, a throw wasn't even attempted, etc. Rather than have the umpire decide whether the runner would have advanced anyway, they do it this way?

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Perhaps because it's impossible to know if ball four affected the defense's response to the play. Catcher was slower retrieving the ball, a throw wasn't even attempted, etc. Rather than have the umpire decide whether the runner would have advanced anyway, they do it this way?

Reference please. Fed.

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FED 7-1-1 "WHILE THE IMPROPER BATTER IS AT BAT, if a runner advances ..."

In the OP, the at-bat was over as soon as it was ball 4.

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?

[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*.

[UmpJM]

Chris,

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

I think "while he is at bat" is being taken too literally. ...

On the other hand, I don't think it's being taken litereally enough - at least by some people.

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

JM,
What "causuality"? The OBR rule lists two penalties when an improper batter completes his at bat:
1) the proper batter is out.
2) any runners who had advanced by reason of the improper batter's batted ball, or were forced to advance, are returned to their original base.

Those are the only two penalties. In OP1, R2 wasn't forced, and there was no batted ball. Therefore, by rule he does not return.

To all---
FED and NCAA both return all runners who advanced after the improper batter had completed his time at bat. So in OP1, the runner would return if the game is played under NCAA or FED rules. OBR is different.

The causality implicit in phrases like "...by reason of.." and "...because of...".

And your paraphrase of the OBR rule is not exactly what it says, is it? Because a "batted ball" is in no way required, from the plain unambiguous text of the rule, in order to nullify a runner's advance. (i.e. ...because of the improper batter’s advance to first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise."

To me, the "because of" clause of the rule really just means "on a play where the batter completed his at bat". Of course, I can't "prove it".

I believe the OBR, NCAA, and FED rules are all identical with regard to nullifying other runner's advances, thought the wording IS slightly different.

JM

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Chris,

On the other hand, I don't think it's being taken literally enough - at least by some people.

JM

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

[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.

[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.

[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?