BOO & Continuous Action

[Chris Viverito]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree that the "authorities" differ on OBR. I thought we were (and I was) discussing FED.

I am discussing FED. And NCAA and OBR. Several mentions re: NCAA and OBR have been brought up in this discussion as well. J/R would detail a rules difference for both if they are aware of it. I understand their 'authority' does not necessarily extend to that, and that their authority is certainly a perceived one, not an official one. I am not suggesting the reference is an authority. Just that it is a solid reference to "clearly define baseball concepts taken for granted", and that the text clearly is in contrast to the 'runners return' argument.

Sure - the J/R manual can be wrong. The Fed test's can and have been wrong too. Obviously - my intent here is to discover what is 'right' and dispel the rumor or misconception for good. I know...'good luck'

From my own study and interpretation I do not conclude differently from any of the three codes. Specifically - if the FED and NCAA want it called differently they should make an open and specific case play or directive to dispel the perceived myth and/or debate.

Several mentions have been made that the Fed part 1 test had a similar question and the answer supports the 'runners return' position. I am not disputing that it exists, but I would like to see it. I do not see it in the 50 questions posed for 2011. Is it somewhere else?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Chris Viverito

Several mentions have been made that the Fed part 1 test had a similar question and the answer supports the 'runners return' position. I am not disputing that it exists, but I would like to see it. I do not see it in the 50 questions posed for 2011. Is it somewhere else?

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.