BOO & Continuous Action

[GerryBlue]

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?

[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.

[UmpTTS43]

He is also correct concerning OBR and NCAA.

[UmpJM]

UmpTT,

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

(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. ...

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

[UmpTTS43]

You can delineate your assertion through their ambiguous verbiage.

[jicecone]

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.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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

[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.

[jicecone]

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

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.