Crazy play

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Alligator Bag
I appreciate everyone's replies. This is what some of the thought process was to get to batting out of order. I don't believe putting the ball in play incorrectly applies here. We wouldn't keep from putting the ball in play if the incorrect batter took the spot from the beginning of the pitch sequence. Since there was a batted ball, an out, and a runner crosses the plate, I don't believe you can just pretend like it didn't happen.

The argument, from an OBR perspective, is that your Batter standing on 1st base hasn't yet completed his time at bat per OBR 6.04, so your PU should have directed him to return to the plate to complete his turn at bat. I think that's the "mistake" that Roder suggests you might have to "eat" if enough intervening game play has taken place when you notice it.

According to JEA your PU shouldn't have put the ball into play unless the batter was also in the batter's box - that's where my suggestion arose that your PU may have improperly put the ball back into play, but that was based on the expressed OPINION of the author of JEA, and not on any official MLB interpretation. The logic there also assumes that either you and your partner knew the guy on 1st should still have been the batter, which you clearly didn't until afterward.

Even if your PU didn't improperly put the ball back into play, allowing another batter to complete the proper batter's time at bat meets only half of the prerequisite conditions for BOOT under OBR 6.07(a). The other half of the requirement is that the proper batter should first have failed to bat in the proper turn. Your guy actually batted in the proper turn, so BOOT probably doesn't really apply - he just didn't complete the at bat himself. The rules simply don't recognise that the umpires might allow the proper batter to start an at bat and then permit another batter to complete that at bat without a legal substitution having first taken place.

As for the Do-Over, the point of my JEA citations was to show that there are examples under OBR where ignoring the batted ball, the out and the runner crossing the plate is EXACTLY what you should do in similar cases - for instance under OBR 1.01, having started an inning without the requisite number of defensive players. In that case you can go 3 outs, 44 pitches, seven base awards and 10 runs but if there weren't 9 defensive players at the start of that inning then you still are supposed to nullify everything and start over. Ok, ok, your case wasn't under OBR, but most times when a rule is not covered under one code you are permitted to draw on the equivalent interpretations from another code until you are directed otherwise.

Originally posted by Alligator Bag
I am a little confused as to what mistake there is to "eat". We didn't award the batter first, or so my partner says, so I don't believe the improper batter should be ignored. Just tried to be as fair as possible and have some part of the book to go by. I did run this by a couple of MLB umpires I know and even though we were not using those rules, both did mention batting out of order first. Just a few more thoughts and ideas and once again, I liked reading all the replies.

FWIW I don't agree with Rick Roder's summation either, but that an airplane ticket and $AUD2.50c might get you a cup of coffee Down Under. The point is that the situation you presented is clearly not covered under the rules. You guys applied your common sense and made a decision. It is not the exact same decision that I would have made, but if you were able justify it to the coaches and avoid a protest then you have settled on a winner and good luck to you.

It was an interesting question, Al, and I thank you for raising it here and giving me an opportunity to think it through and toss in my $AUD0.02c worth.

Cheers