|
Quote:
Meanwhile, we will be in the 70's+ all the rest of the week working ball. |
And I agree with you completely, B4 should be the one batting in the next inning, in the scenario presented. How did the B3 not making an out come into play? I think that's where my confusion has occurred. I'm following one situation, and it seems, another situation was brought up in the middle the discussion. It's like circles inside circles. I kinda think I have a fair to middlin' understanding of the rules, I'm just not follerin' the flow here.
|
This is a guaranteed grammar-free post.
<b>Mach3's post is asking about B3 batting again and is told that is correct. Can you help a poor ole country boy out here?</b> I think the confusion may be greater for people accustomed to baseball's BOO rules. In ASA, after an appeal is upheld for BOO, the next legal batter is the one who followed the batter called out for failing to bat in the proper order. But there's one exception: if Abel is supposed to bat but Baker bats wrongly and makes an out, then Abel is out, Baker's out counts, and Charles is the next legal batter. However, if Abel is supposed to bat but <i>Charles</i> bats wrongly and makes an out, then Abel is out, Charles's out counts, and Baker is the next legal batter. Therefore, Charles will soon be up again. OBR treats this differently. If Baker bats wrongly for Abel and makes an out and the defense appeals, then Abel is out but Baker's at bat does not count regardless of what he did. Baker could have struck out or hit a home run—he bats again. This is why in OBR it is sometimes <i>not</i> advantageous to appeal BOO. No outs, Abel on 1B. Charles bats instead of Baker and hits into a double play. On a BOO appeal, Baker is out, but Abel returns to 1B and Charles bats again. Better for the manager to ignore the infraction. Besides, having skipped Baker, the other team might continue to bat out of order in the next inning and offer another chance for appeal. But in that same situation in ASA, the manager would get three outs. The double play counts, and Baker is out on appeal. (And Daniels would lead off the next inning.) Fed softball calls that play differently (Baker is out, Abel's out counts, but Charles is <i>not</i> out. She bats again). I'm not sure how Fed baseball calls it. |
Please excuse me, but I still need some clarification:
No out B2 fails to bat B3 is the first out at 1st base B2 is the second out on the appeal Next batter is B4 because of: Rule 7-2-C-2-C Exception If the incorrect batter (B3) was out as a result at their time at bat, and is scheduled to be the next proper batter, skip that player and the next person in the line-up (B4) will be the batter. That's just fine so far. Now: One out B2 fails to bat B3 is the second out at first base B2 is the third out on the appeal What you say is that the next batter again is B4??? That means, that for you the term "the batter" in Rule 7-2-C-2-D "If the batter declared out under..." is the incorrect batter, not the correct one who failed to bat, right? Why should that be the case? If that'd be the case, 7-2-C-2-D would repeat exactly the same as 7-2-C-2-C, just mentioning that it is valid for the third out as well and there is no reason at all for this repetition. In addition 7-2-C-2-D actually mentions that "the batter" in "If the batter declared out under..." had NOT been put out by ordinary play: "... who would have come to bat, HAD THE PLAYER BEEN PUT OUT BY ORDINARY PLAY" This again implies, that he rather was out on the appeal, saying that we are talking about the correct batter who failed to bat which means that in any case the next batter is the one following him, regardless whether he was put out on base or not. What do you think about that? |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:40pm. |