BOO ruling in Dizzy Dean

[dfscott]

This happened to a friend of mine's team in a DD tournament we both attended. Here's the situation:

Start of inning, opponent is at the bottom of their lineup (B7, B8, and B9 are due up). B7 singles, then a pinch hitter is sent up. PH singles, moving the runner to 2nd. Then, instead of B9 coming up, the top of the order, B1, comes to the plate. Defense notices, but waits for the result of the play, hoping for a double-play and knowing that it can always be called back if not. B1 doubles, driving in both runs. B2 comes to the plate and before the ball is pitched, defensive manager tells ump that B1 batted out of order (B9 was skipped). Umpire agrees, calling B9 out, sending B1 back to the batters box (since he should be the next batter), and sends the runners back.

Offensive manager cames storming out of the dugout, claiming that when PH came in, he announced to the umpire that he was batting for B9, not B8, which umpire thinks about, then confirms. If so, continues the manager, then it was actually the PH that was batting out of turn, but the PH became legal as soon as a pitch was thrown to B1. Umpire reverses himself and lets the original play stand.

I spoke with my friend after the game, who was pretty upset, but the umpire told him "if you knew he was out of order, you should've said something before the first pitch. Then I could've called B8 out."

I can't find a flaw in the logic, but it still seems a little shady to me. After the game, the opposing manager said he had intended for the PH to bat for B9, but he went out too soon (this is 8U ball). He claimed he didn't realize it until too late.

[bob jenkins]

Did the umpire announce the PH (including that he was hitting for B9) to the opposing team? He should have, and this all would have been avoided (or at least there wouldn't be any controversy about it).

[MD Longhorn]

This sounds hokey, almost to the point that OC planned this miscommunication to get B1 up faster.

Lucky for me, I'd have this on my card, and likely would have corrected the coach when he said, "for B9".

I think I have BOO in this sitch as described.

[MikeStrybel]

I can see a good umpire catching this at a Varisty or above level but during youth baseball, especially a house league, this is going to get by most. Around here, for U11 and below, it is a straight batting order - we have 12, so 12 bat. There are no line up cards and the home team keeps the official book.

Do you receive line up cards and keep track of subs, PH, etc. during your small ball games?

As for the ruling, if the DHC cannot prove that he was not aware of the PH for the 8th batter then the ruling is solid. If the OHC planned this it is brilliant coaching, cheating but creative. Let the league punish him for skipping his (presumably) weakest batter.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I can see a good umpire catching this at a Varisty or above level but during youth baseball, especially a house league, this is going to get by most. Around here, for U11 and below, it is a straight batting order - we have 12, so 12 bat. There are no line up cards and the home team keeps the official book.

Do you receive line up cards and keep track of subs, PH, etc. during your small ball games?

Generally, about half the youth leagues around here give the option to the team of whether to bat the lineup or not. Those that do, I accept their lineup at the PC and put it in my pocket. I might have pulled one of those out to address BOO at most once per year. Those that don't, I treat exactly the same as I do at a HS PC - look it over, clarify anything marginal, ask the coach to double check it, and then dub it official - and put it in my pocket. For those teams, YES, I do notate subs, PH, etc. And yes - I'm pretty confident I or any of my partners would have corrected a coach who said, #19 going in for B9 if B9 was not currently the next batter ... or at least made sure B9 is what he meant ... and in THAT case, I'm making sure both scorekeeper and opposing coach have the sub completely clear.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Generally, about half the youth leagues around here give the option to the team of whether to bat the lineup or not. Those that do, I accept their lineup at the PC and put it in my pocket. I might have pulled one of those out to address BOO at most once per year. Those that don't, I treat exactly the same as I do at a HS PC - look it over, clarify anything marginal, ask the coach to double check it, and then dub it official - and put it in my pocket. For those teams, YES, I do notate subs, PH, etc. And yes - I'm pretty confident I or any of my partners would have corrected a coach who said, #19 going in for B9 if B9 was not currently the next batter ... or at least made sure B9 is what he meant ... and in THAT case, I'm making sure both scorekeeper and opposing coach have the sub completely clear.

Way to go. I don't work small ball and haven't for a couple decades.

Our league and almost all in my son's travel program in Illinois and Wisconsin don't issue line up cards for 11U.

[dfscott]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

This sounds hokey, almost to the point that OC planned this miscommunication to get B1 up faster.

That's why my friend thought -- it was just too convenient otherwise.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I can see a good umpire catching this at a Varisty or above level but during youth baseball, especially a house league, this is going to get by most. Around here, for U11 and below, it is a straight batting order - we have 12, so 12 bat. There are no line up cards and the home team keeps the official book.

Do you receive line up cards and keep track of subs, PH, etc. during your small ball games?

As for the ruling, if the DHC cannot prove that he was not aware of the PH for the 8th batter then the ruling is solid. If the OHC planned this it is brilliant coaching, cheating but creative. Let the league punish him for skipping his (presumably) weakest batter.

That was part of the problem -- we almost always bat our entire roster. The only time we don't is during district and state tournaments, where we actually submit roster cards. As a result, we're all pretty unfamiliar with the process, as are the umps.

As someone else asked" the ump didn't announce anything, I think when the kid said who he was batter for, he just assumed it was the correct batter. It was only when it was brought up that that he recalled the name.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

As for the ruling, if the DHC cannot prove that he was not aware of the PH for the 8th batter then the ruling is solid.

Fact: 8 due up, OHC stated PH for 9, when should OHC announce his substitute?
The DHC doesn't have to prove anything. I would enforce BOO.
Ignorance claimed by the OHC is not a valid justification of events.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

If the OHC planned this it is brilliant coaching, cheating but creative. .

Do you believe or listen to OHC flim-flam for a second? That is not good coaching.
If the coach accepted blame for the BOO, that is good coaching.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Let the league punish him for skipping his (presumably) weakest batter.

Do you really believe the league will take any action?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by SAump

Fact: 8 due up, OHC stated PH for 9, when should OHC announce his substitute?
The DHC doesn't have to prove anything. I would enforce BOO.
Ignorance claimed by the OHC is not a valid justification of events.

Do you believe or listen to OHC flim-flam for a second? That is not good coaching.
If the coach accepted blame for the BOO, that is good coaching.
Do you really believe the league will take any action?

The thread stated that the OHC said the PH was for the 9th batter - he had skipped the 8th, intentionally or not. The DHC says it was for the 8th. The OHC did not claim ignorance. The DHC was pissed when the umpire sided with the OHC. The umpire didn't keep thorough records and was fooled.

The coach sought an advantage through cheating. An umpire's job is to prevent it. The other team has the responsibility to watch for it too. I may not like it but it is very real.

Our league would handle it. There are a number of stories online about coaches who cheated and were caught only to be held accountable by their leagues. I recall one where a coach was caught not playing a child who was not very talented. He walked in a run in order to avoid a slaughter rule just so the kid could bat in the fifth inning. He will never be allowed to coach in that league again. Yes, some leagues get it right.

[Rich Ives]

If you're in a rule set where you cannot pre-announce subs then when the PH stepped into the box he became an unannounced sub for B8 and legally in the 8 slot..

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

If you're in a rule set where you cannot pre-announce subs then when the PH stepped into the box he became an unannounced sub for B8 and legally in the 8 slot..

I don't think the PH was an "unnanounced" sub. He, as I read it, reported to the PU, who made the notation on the line-up card (edit: after re-reading the OP, I see no indication of whether there was a line-up card or notation.). That makes him a sub for whomever he reported.

The pU screwed up by not announcing this to the defense, so they didn't know what was going on.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't think the PH was an "unnanounced" sub. He, as I read it, reported to the PU, who made the notation on the line-up card (edit: after re-reading the OP, I see no indication of whether there was a line-up card or notation.). That makes him a sub for whomever he reported.

The pU screwed up by not announcing this to the defense, so they didn't know what was going on.

Exactly. Say the players were using uniform numbers 1-9 to designate their batting spot. #8 should be due up, but #10 walks up; coach yells "Blue, #10 batting for #9!"

I mark the change on my card, then tell the defense, saying "#10 batting for #9 in the 9-hole." At this point, #10 is in the box, batting for #9. Even though #8 should be in the box, then we've got a simple BOO at this point. Because defense didn't notice it until B1 was hitting, that's not my fault.

Last I checked, it wasn't my job to ensure teams were following their batting order, and I don't check that the batter being changed is supposed to be the next batter -- it's offense and defense's jobs to make sure they're being followed.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't think the PH was an "unnanounced" sub. He, as I read it, reported to the PU, who made the notation on the line-up card (edit: after re-reading the OP, I see no indication of whether there was a line-up card or notation.). That makes him a sub for whomever he reported.

The pU screwed up by not announcing this to the defense, so they didn't know what was going on.

My point was that if he was approaching the plate as B8 was due up he can announce all he wants that he's batting for B9 but if you cannot pre-announce subs then he can't legally announce he's batting for B9. Therefore as he steps into the box he's an unannounced bub for B8.

[greymule]

"I recall one where a coach was caught not playing a child who was not very talented. He walked in a run in order to avoid a slaughter rule just so the kid could bat in the fifth inning."

If I'm reading this correctly, I don't see where the coach is some sort of villain. I assume that the league requires that every kid play in the game (and bat). So the coach could have been planning to play the less-talented kid from the fifth inning on but then became faced with a shortened (4-inning) game, so he extended it to get the kid in. Yes, it's ridiculous that he had to walk in a run to prolong the game and satisfy the rule, but should a coach have to play every kid in the first few innings just in case the mercy rule shortens the game?