BOT question

[Matt]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Some have already contended just that. I was at a clinic today and asked Rob Drake and Lance Barrett about this. Both said that when an improper batter becomes a runner and is properly appealed, all advances and outs are nullified.

I can say that Rob has been wrong in the past (not saying that as a dig, but even the top guys make mistakes.)

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Matt

I can say that Rob has been wrong in the past (not saying that as a dig, but even the top guys make mistakes.)

I'm just reporting the research. Everyone has been wrong in the past.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

WOW! 5 pages of discussion on a simple batting out of order question.

This board is becoming pathetic!

It's not as simple as you say, given the dialogue, and references to authoritative opinions that conflict. Historically, two things cause discussions to drag on and on, situations where there is no official ruling, and situations where there are conflicting rulings. Seems to me this falls into the category of the latter.

To me, it makes perfect sense to allow base advances that are not a direct result of the improper batter becoming a batter-runner. Where is the logic of allowing a lone runner from second to keep his advance of third while the improper batter remains at bat, whether it be by a straight steal, a passed ball, a wild pitch, an errant throw, or a balk? But he's not allowed to keep that advance if that straight steal, passed ball, etc., etc., happen as the improper batter receives Ball Four?

I agree that it's much cleaner and easier to just rule that all base advances get nullified when the improper batter completes his at-bat. After all, you could get into sticky situations where the umpires are left to judge if the base advance by other non-forced runners was really a result of the improper batter becoming a batter-runner. For example, a lone R2 advances to third on an uncaught third strike where the catcher makes a subsequent throw to first to retire the batter-runner. Sending R2 back regardless whether he advanced easily without the benefit of the throw going to first, or as a result of the throw going there, is a simpler solution than trying to figure out if his advance was aided by the play at first.

I have always believed that this cleaner, easier ruling was the norm. Now, I'm not so sure, since there apparently are some authoritative positions that say otherwise. Since I don't do much basebal anymore, I haven't kept my library of references (MLBUM, J/R, BRD, etc.) up to date to check for myself. But if it is indeed true that these different postions exist, I can understand the lengthy discussion.