BOO & Continuous Action

[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.

[UmpJM]

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:

Any advance or outs made because of an improper batter becoming a runner would be nullified if the defensive team appeals at the proper time. (Outs made because of a pick-off or caught stealing while the improper batter is at bat are legal.) Play is to revert back to the position of the runners at the time the improper batter took a position in the batter's box (with the exception of advances covered in the Note to Official Baseball Rule 6.07(b) or outs made on a pick-off or steal play while the improper batter is at bat).

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

[greymule]

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.