Rule 7-2-C-2-D of th '04 ASA Rule Book says...

If the batter declared out under these circumstances is the third out, the correct batter in the next inning shall be the player who would have come to bat had the player been put out by ordinary play.

Rule 7-2-C-2-C Exception says....

If the incorrect batter 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 will be the batter.

Ok, thats what the rule book says. Now the situation...

The top of the line-up is due up in the top of the 3rd inning. Batter 1 is thrown out at first. Batter 2 fails to bat. Batter 3 bats in his/her place, batting out of order, but is thrown out at first. So now we have two outs.

Batter 4 comes to the plate, but before the next legal/illegal pitch, the defense appeals, getting the 3rd out.

Now, who bats the next inning? I think its batter 4 because of the exception above. Am I right?

Thanks!

Which is it, Cecil - anyone can't or no one can? http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-025.gif

I know ... one of those sentences are both the same!http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smilie/mad.gif

Anyway, to the scenario...

B1 put out through ordinary play.
B3 put out through ordinary play.
B2 declared out on the BOO appeal.
B3 is due up as the legal batter to follow B2, but due to the exception in "c", B4 bats first in the next inning.

One of those network errors where it looks like nothing was posted. I like the first one better, bu the second is probably simpler. I deleted both to save space.

I hope you weren't offended by my little fun-poking, Cecil.

The use of language is one of my interests... Odd for an engineer, but there it is anyway...

Of course not, even if I hadn't deserved it; and I share that interest even if you can't tell by my hasty posts.

Actually, both of your sentences were correct and said the same thing... didn't have no double negatives er nuthin'!

Actually, BOTH sentences were INCORRECT. Any batter CAN lead off the next inning. "Can" means ability. "MAY" means permission.

Bob

OK, back to the problem:
So if instead of B3 B4 would be the impropper batter (batting instead of B2) than in the next Inning B3 would be up first, followed by B4? Right?

Raoul

mach3: Right.

<b>Actually, BOTH sentences were INCORRECT. Any batter CAN lead off the next inning. "Can" means ability. "MAY" means permission.</b>

I guess we've all been through the "teacher, can I get a drink?" lesson, where the teacher says yes and the kid gets up to leave for the drinking fountain and is then chastised for not obtaining permission. As for batters, though, what's at issue is not permission but ability to bat under the rules.

<i>Can</i> does often denote absolute ability (he can juggle four balls at once), but it also applies with understood conditions: "You can't put pennies in that parking meter" doesn't mean it is impossible to insert pennies; the condition "and get time on the meter" is understood. "You can't put gasoline in a diesel engine" is clearly false in absolute terms (I know: my brother did it years ago when he was working in a filling station), but permission is not the issue. Understood is "and then have the engine operate properly."

Anyone who makes an out can't lead off the next inning <i>legally.</i>

As for whether that sentence is technically <i>grammatically</i> correct, believe it or not, at least two local university professors are consulting their reference books. The question is, While <i>anyone</i> alone clearly cannot be used in a negative construction (anyone cannot join the club), does the rule apply to a "qualified" <i>anyone</i> (anyone from out of state cannot join the club)?

My position is that the sentence is in fact technically incorrect, but acceptable in everyday use. Like "Jim's mother gave him a kiss" and "the runner's mistake caused her to be called out" (which are both grammatically incorrect), it does violate a rule, but harmlessly.

Bob is a retired old coot who is a hopeless curmudgeon, http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/Cartangry.gif
but I hope for the rest of our sanity, we can get back out on the field soon.

And, a pox on all you Texans and other sunbelters. ;)

Right.

OK, I'm confused and I don't know why. It could be Grey Mules grammatical discussion or I just am misunderstanding the situation. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/dunno.gif

<b> Originally posted by Dakota

Anyway, to the scenario...

B1 put out through ordinary play.
B3 put out through ordinary play.
B2 declared out on the BOO appeal.
B3 is due up as the legal batter to follow B2, but due to the exception in "c", B4 bats first in the next inning. </b>

Now, I'm with you so far and agree wholeheartedly. Why would B3 ever come back to bat again in this situation? I know it's all in English, not even King's English, http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/flags/england.gif but good ole American English, am I missing something? 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? I may need pictures, I don't know. Guess I'll just keep on plodding on til it clears up. http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/Cartwalk2.gif

[Edited by TexBlue on Feb 18th, 2004 at 01:38 PM]

That's one of the nicest things anyone has said about me.

Thanks,

Bob

Glad you enjoyed it... it was meant as friend to friend (even though we've never met). ;)

If B3 had not been put out, B3 would be due up since B3 follows B2. Here is the section of the rule that pertains...

ASA 7-2C EFFECT-2c (whew!)Since B2 was the player called out for failing to bat, B3 would be due up. However, paragraph c continues...B3 was the incorrect batter, and was put out on the play, and would be the next batter due up, so she is skipped and B4 comes to bat.

You guys will be out of hibernation http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-012.gif soon.
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?