BOO & Continuous Action
 

1) Able is R2. Charles follows batting out of turn. Charles walks on a wild pitch, with R2 going to third on the wild pitch. Defense appeals BOO, Baker is declared out. Does R2 return to 2nd?
2) Able is R1. Charles follows batting out of turn. R1 is off on the pitch, which turns out to be ball four. R1 overruns 2nd, and the catcher immediately throws trying catch the runner at 2nd. Is the catcher's throw a play which would negate an appeal for BOO?

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

JM: are you sure?

mbyron,

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

But, pretty much, yes.

JM

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.

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.

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

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

He is also correct concerning OBR and NCAA.

UmpTT,

I've always preferred the "cleaner language" of the NCAA rule:

It plainly state that the improper batter completing his at bat is what matters, and does not even indirectly suggest the umpire tread the slippery slope of causality.

I believe the OBR rule "means" the same thing, but I can't prove it.

JM

You can delineate your assertion through their ambiguous verbiage.

Ok, we have managed to use a lot of words here and I am somewhat confused. I have R2's advance during Charles at bat, (the fact that the wild pitch was ball four is irrelavant) being attributed as a result of the wild pitch. Therefore R2 would remain at third in accordance with Fed 7-1-1 last sentence of paragraph on pg 42. Fed only. Sit.1 of the original op.

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

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. :p

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

OK, I understand where your coming from. Not convinced yet either way, wether I agree or disagree because of the very fine line here but, I understand.

Just from the NFHS side: I don't have a problem returning R1 to TOP in OP1, but I'm not so sure about allowing an appeal following F2's play on R1 in OP2. If everybody else but me "gets it," please enlighten me.

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.

The FED definition of "play" is something like "Begins when the pitcher has the ball and ends when the pitcher next has the ball or the ball becomes dead"

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.

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.

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?

Reference please. Fed.

Sorry, can't. I have no idea what the actual rule says, you had asked why they do it that way. I'm assuming the rulings posted here are correct and was answering a "why" question rather than a "how" or "what."

Chris,

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

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

Yes, they do, and thanks.

Are we to accept that the NFHS is using their definition of "play" within the context of allowing a viable BOO appeal when they write, "...the defensive team appeals to the umpire before the first legal or illegal pitch, or, play or attempted play,...the umpire shall declare the proper batter out and return all runners to the base occupied at the time of the pitch."

I only ask to be sure, because I have always understood the term "play" within the context above as an act by the defense to make an out.

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?

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?

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.

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*.

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.

Ok, I can buy off on it.

There was a part I FED question about a play like this. You would return the runner because the runner scored at the same time the BOO became a runner.

If this is a 'rule this way until they change the wording' issue - I get that. Either way, I would like to note:

J/R 2008 ed. Pg 65. B (2) "Defense appeals at correct time: ...If the defense appeals BOO after an improper batter has completed his time at bat...before subsequent pitch, or post continuous action play, then the following penalties are enforced:

Any runner who advanced because of the improper batter's batted ball or award must return to his TOP base. A runner who advanced for some other or additional reason (wild pick-off throw, overthrow, wild-pitch, balk) is allowed his advance."

Seems pretty clear to me. Runner stays at 3rd.

Seems pretty clear that J/R is WRONG yet again.

Actually, it doesn't (though J/R might be wrong -- I'm not disputing that). It seems from what Chris quotes that J/R simply propagates the existing ambiguity in OBR.

I think that the principle of allowing a runner to advance during an improper batter's time at bat but not once he has become a runner is fair and clear. That's the principle that's implicit in FED and NCAA, and probably what OBR means to say.

I think of it this way: until he becomes a runner, the improper batter might be replaced by the proper batter. So any advance during that time should stand. But once the improper batter becomes a runner, even if there's a WP on ball 4, we're going to send runners back. That's part of the penalty for BOO.

I disagree. The penalty for BOO is to call the PB out and return runners who advanced on the IB's award or batted ball.

Wild-pitches, balks, errant pick-off throws are all excluded from that penalty.

I know - 'during' his time at bat. This is the mistake. That wild pitch is still a pitch until...you know.

I bought off on this because I have nevr in 25 years had it happen and don't expect it too. I know, never say never.

What I did find interesing was Case paly 7.1.1 Sit D though. R1 steals home. The sit. specifically says the the pitch is not strike three or ball four. Then in the ruling it discusses what would happen if it was strike three (obvious) but, then coincidently leaves out any discussion about ball four.

Some may say it is obvious also but, we will never know.

I am still willing to settle for ambiquious and leave at that, and deal with it, if and when it ever happens.

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

Chris,

That is not what the rule actually says. In the actual rule, at the end, there is the intriguing use of the phrase "...or otherwise".

While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Roder, and believe he has likely already forgotten more than I will ever know about umpiring, someone on a long-ago thread touching on the same question posted a BOOT "case play" from the J/R which included the following:

I don't know if the case play is still there in more current editions of the J/R or not. But, in this one, "Adams" was a "forced runner" who advanced to 2B on a ball 4/wild pitch to an improper batter, which the defense then successfully appealed.

Upon reflection, I found the notion that "the umpire must decide.." whether Adams' advance was due to his award or the wild pitch to be patently absurd.

And it reflects my issue with the notion of "causality" implicit in the position held by you and others that it is the "effect" of the batter's specific "action" on the runner's advance that is material.

I mean, if the batter gets a walk and forced runners advance, what did the batter actually do. He just stood there and "took the pitch". It was really more the pitcher who did all the "work". (Well, and the umpire, of course.)

Let's say an improper batter hits an "easy triple play ball" that the F5 boots the crap out of, allowing everybody to advance. Was it really the batter's action that the runners' advances are "due to", or the multiple errors made by F5?

Or, as in the OP, an "unforced" R3 scores on a WP ball 4 or U3K. How do you know that the WP wasn't "due to" the intimidating presence of the improper batter under the stressful conditions of a full count?

You don't. It's impossible to judge (at least in some cases) with any degree of consistency.

What would you do with the R3 if, instead of scoring, he were thrown out at the plate? (Yeah, I know, who in their right mind would appeal that? Let's just say they did.)

The only "clean" and "consistent" interpretation is that REGARDLESS of how the batter completed his at bat, and who did what to whom, is to treat all advances on the play the same. They either stand if not appealed or they are nullified upon appeal.

Until proven otherwise, that's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

JM

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?

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?

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 agree. I was paraphrasing bro.

That case is not in my 12th ed. But if it was I would say hooray for J/R. A runner forced to advance by an award to an IB is nullified if properly appealed.

Absurd? "The umpire must decide" makes perfect sense to me. I agree that it would be a difficult sell - but by the rule I can let Adams stay at 2d if I believe he would have gotten there on the WP.

That is not my argument. Mine is that the purpose of the rule is to keep runners from advancing by an IB batted ball or by being forced to advance by an IB award.

This is purely argumentative. It's not what the IB does...it's WHY are the runners are advancing.

No - again - it's not what the batter did. It's WHY are the runners advancing. Because they were forced to when the batter became a runner - they are returned upon successful BOO appeal.

Maybe it was. But...as your feeble attempt to be a wise cracker...it is irrelevant. It's not what the batter does...it's that the umpire does his job. :)

If you dream it, you can conceive it.

Simple. He's out. All outs that occur during the continuous action are upheld. Didn't you read the rule dude?

Again - I must disagree. I believe the cleanest and most consistent way to approach this is to look upon the rule for its purpose. Which I believe is to negate the advancement of runners when an IB bats the ball in play or forces them to advance due to an award.

That's cool guru. Good luck explaining that on the field.

Until proven otherwise I will allow runners to advance unless the IB advances them on a batted ball or by forcing them to advance by an award AND the BOO is properly appealed.

JM - leave it to you my friend.

One last point...at any other time 'during' the at bat the runners would be allowed their advancement on a WP for ball 1, 2, or 3. So - why (other than the word 'during') would they be returned on ball 4?

Stir it up bro.

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.

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

Yep, that FED question. Thanks Bob.

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.

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.

Chris,

You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you?

JM

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.

So it is the obligation of others who are not your "buddies" to know your intent? That sounds like the thinking of an 8th grader.

Chris and UmpJM are members of the same association. The comments were in jest.

No, you (and others) wouldn't have known. That's why mbyron asked and Chris answered.

Just an update - I contacted the NCAA for the proper ruling in this sitch.

For NCAA - call the proper batter out, get the next batter in the box and allow the advance, because the IB did not advance the runner with a batted ball or by his award.

More to come.

I disagree with them:

If the batter instantly becomes a runner, then anything that happens after that point is nullified with a successful BOO appeal. Therefore, any advance after the pitch is ruled ball four should be nullified.

Here is a relevant thread from 5 years ago. (OBR only, however.)

http://forum.officiating.com/basebal...nightmare.html

Additional info. The OBR ruling was confirmed by over a dozen active pro's. Leave the runner at 3rd. The IB did not advance him.

More to come on the proper NFHS ruling.

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.

Chris,

That is certainly one possibility. I just said that it wasn't there anymore. I actually have no idea why.

I do not think it is safe to say that because there is nothing in the text of the rule or any interpretation that suggests the source's suggested ruling is correct.

JM

Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last.

I'm going to settle this once and for all by ordering the "get every MLB game" option from my cable TV company and then simply watching all the games until the play occurs and I can see how the umpires rule.

Good idea. But, that assumes that they would rule correctly.

To be sure, however they rule should be protested, and then the protest ruled upon.

Haven't gotten that memo yet.

There isn't one published. But if you are interested in what they want...all you have to do is ask for it.