Batting Order

[rwest]

Let see if I can start another 40+ entry thread?

Rule 7-2-4 says

"No runner shall be removed from the base occupied except the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above to bat in the proper place."

I believe this is poorly worded or at least needs to be expanded. The way it is written it sounds like the only time a runner is removed from the bases is when the batter-runner made it safely to base and is the next appropriate batter. Is that a correct interpretation?

Situation 1:

R1 on 1B. B3 due up, but B4 bats and makes it safely to first. R1 is now on 2B. The defense appeals before the next legal/illegal pitch.

Ruling: B3 is out. The advance of R1 is nullified. R1 is returned to 1B. B4 is removed from 1B and bats again.


Situation 2:

R1 on 1B. B3 due up, but B5 bats and makes it safely to first. R1 is now on 2B. The defense appeals before the next legal/illegal pitch.

Ruling: B3 is out. The advance of R1 is nullified. R1 is returned to 1B. B5 is removed from 1B. B4 is the next batter. We had to remove B5 because of the advance of R1, even though he/she is not the next proper batter.

Situation 3:

R1 on 3B. B3 due up, but B7 bats and hits a ground ball to F5. F5 holds the runner at third. B7 beats the throw to 1B. The defense appeals before the next legal/illegal pitch.

Ruling: B3 is out. B7 is removed from 1B. B4 is the next batter.

Is it correct to say that anytime the defense appeals before the next legal/illegal pitch, that the improper batter should be removed from the bases if they made it safely, regardless of whether or not they are the next proper batter or forced the other runners to advance? If we dont always remove them, it is possible that they could still be on base when their proper turn at bat is due up.

For example,

Situation 4:

R1 on 3B. B3 due up, but B6 bats and hits a ground ball to F5. F5 holds the runner at third. B6 beats the throw to 1B. The defense appeals before the next legal/illegal pitch.

Ruling: B3 is out. B4 is the next batter. Lets assume we do not remove B6 from 1B. If B4 walks, this puts B6 at 2B. Now B5 flys out for the 2nd out. Now we still have B6 at 2B and he's due up to bat next. If we didnt remove on the appeal, do we now remove him to bat?

Thanks!
Randall

[greymule]

In all your cases, the defense appealed before the next legal/illegal pitch. Therefore, the batter who should have batted is out, any outs made on a play stand, and any advance is nullified. If the BR reached base, he is always removed from the base.

However, rule 7-2-C-4 is badly written. (What? In the ASA rule book?) Because it is numbered at the same level as 2 and 3, it appears to stand alone as a general rule under 7-2-C. However, it is meant to fall under 7-2-C-3 (if the error is discovered after the next legal/illegal pitch) so the rule should read:

7-2-C-3

If the error is discovered . . . bench or dugout area:

a. The turn at bat of the incorrect batter is legal . . . until reached again in the regular order.

b. No runner shall be removed . . . becomes the legal batter.

Rule 7-2-C-4 pertains to situations where the error is discovered after the next legal/illegal pitch, but it unnecessarily mentions what is done when the error is discovered before the next legal/illegal pitch. So the logic has broken down. Put simply, if we're talking about errors discovered after the next legal/illegal pitch and gratuitously throw in something about part 2, we create confusion.

What this rule is saying is that if because of failure on the part of the defense to appeal, the proper batter happens to be on base, that runner is not removed from the base but remains on base and is skipped over without penalty. Example: B4, proper batter, singles. B2, improper batter, also singles. B3 gets a base on balls. (As soon as a pitch was thrown to B3, B2's at bat became legal. Therefore, B3 was the proper batter and is properly on 1B.) The next legal batter is now B4, but he's on 3B. In this case, "The correct batter merely misses his turn at bat with no penalty. The batter following the correct batter in the batting order becomes the legal batter." So B4 is skipped and B5 bats.

[rwest]

R1 on 2B. B3 due up to bat, however B5 bats improperly, and gets a base hit. R1 now is standing on 3b. B5 is on 1B. Defense appeals before the next pitch.

Ruling: B3 is out. Bring R1 back to 2B. B4 bats. Do we remove B5 from 1B or do we leave him and skip over him after B4 bats?


Thanks!
Randall

[greymule]

The defense appealed before the next legal/illegal pitch. You remove B5 from 1B. B4 bats.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule

However, rule 7-2-C-4 is badly written. (What? In the ASA rule book?) Because it is numbered at the same level as 2 and 3, it appears to stand alone as a general rule under 7-2-C. However, it is meant to fall under 7-2-C-3

Here's a shock, I disagree. It is exactly where it belongs, under 7-2-B&C-EFFECT. Why, you ask? Okay, so you really didn't, but I shall explain regardless.

The comment applies to ANY runner, not just the most recent batter.

B1 gets a single, B4 gets a single and advances R1 to 3B. B2 singles and you once again have runners at the corners.
B3 hits into a force out on R2 and R4 holds at 3B.

Here is where this rule applies to the batting order (7.2). R4, the batter due up according to 7.2.B is on 3B. 7.2.B&C.EFFECT-4 provides direction allowing R4 to be skipped without penalty and the BO move onto B5.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

It is exactly where it belongs, under 7-2-B&C-EFFECT.

You are both correct (IMO) insofar as what you said that I quoted above.

The rule is confusingly written (badly is too strong), but it is in its proper place.

Here is what the rule is trying to say:

No runner shall be removed from the base occupied to bat in THEIR proper place except the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above. The correct batter merely misses THEIR - OK it's getting tiresome - turn at bat with no penalty. The batter following the correct batter in the batting order becomes the legal batter.

[Edited by Dakota on Feb 23rd, 2005 at 01:47 PM]

[greymule]

No runner shall be removed from the base occupied to bat in THEIR proper place except the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above. The correct batter merely misses THEIR - OK it's getting tiresome - turn at bat with no penalty. The batter following the correct batter in the batting order becomes the legal batter.

It's true that part 4 could stay where it is if written properly, but unfortunately the above still doesn't work.

A runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above has not been taken off to bat in his proper place. He has been removed from the base solely because he does not belong there, whether or not he is supposed to be batting next or soon or whatever.

Part 4 is confusing for many reasons. Though it is written to cover certain situations brought about by the failure of the defense to appeal properly, it muddies the water by unnecessarily making an exception regarding something already covered in part 2, which covers situations in which the defense has properly appealed. When the defense has properly appealed, the situation where the next legal batter is on base cannot arise. Therefore, jettison the section about "(2) above."

I suggest the following for part 4, and then I agree it can stay where it is:

4. If the failure of the defense to appeal an improper batter results in a later situation where a runner on base becomes the next legal batter, such correct batter merely misses his turn at bat with no penalty and stays on his base. The batter following the correct batter in the batting order becomes the next legal batter.

This could be followed by an example such as the one I gave or the one Mike gave.

[mcrowder]

This rule says exactly what it means - you guys are reading an extra comma or semicolon or something into it somewhere.

No runner is removed from the base to bat in their proper position. Stop. Exception (noted by the word "except"!) - a runner removed because of (2) above.

In other words, unless the runner was removed already, you do NOT remove a player from a base in order to bat - that batter's spot is simply skipped with no penalty.

Very easy. Don't make it harder than it is.

[rwest]

Originally posted by mcrowder
This rule says exactly what it means - you guys are reading an extra comma or semicolon or something into it somewhere.

No runner is removed from the base to bat in their proper position. Stop. Exception (noted by the word "except"!) - a runner removed because of (2) above.

In other words, unless the runner was removed already, you do NOT remove a player from a base in order to bat - that batter's spot is simply skipped with no penalty.

Very easy. Don't make it harder than it is.

I like the way you've written the rule. Unfortunately, you didn't write the ASA rulebook. The rule actually says....

No runner shall be removed from the base occupied except the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above to bat in the proper place.

The problem is that rule 2 never mentions that the batter-runner is removed. It's implied and therein lies the problem. To me the problem with rule 7-2-C-4 is the sentence "to bat in the proper place". It makes it sound like the player is removed to bat next. This is not the case. The runner is removed, period. I just wish the rulebook said as much.

[Dakota]

The problem (i.e. the source of the confusion) is an error in syntax of the "throw the cow over the fence some hay" variety (what is thrown, cow or hay?).

The rule says,

"No runner shall be removed from the base occupied except the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above to bat in the proper place."

To which player does the phrase "to bat in the proper place" apply?

If it is the BR (as a strict reading of the rules of English syntax would say), then this causes all kinds of misreading and confusion.

Obviously, the phrase "to bat in the proper place" is meant to apply to "No runner."

Hence, it is meant to be understood this way,

"No runner shall be removed from the base occupied to bat in the proper place except the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above."

[greymule]

"No runner shall be removed from the base occupied to bat in the proper place except the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above."

You're right about the syntax, but in this case it doesn't matter which "to bat in the proper place" refers to, because either way the sentence is factually wrong. No runner is ever removed from a base to bat in his proper place, whether under (2) or otherwise. As soon as a condition is put on this statement, it becomes untrue.

Men can't flap their arms and fly. TRUE.
Men can't flap their arms and fly except men who eat peanut butter. FALSE.

No runner is ever removed from a base to bat in the proper place = TRUE.
No runner is ever removed from a base to bat in the proper place except [any true statement] = FALSE.

The sentence has many other problems, such as the fact that you can't remove a runner who has already been removed (no runner shall be removed from a base occupied . . . except a runner who has been taken off the base).

The batter-runner who has been taken off base by the umpire as in (2) above is not removed to bat in the proper place. He is removed because the defense appealed when he reached base after batting improperly. It has nothing to do with where he bats.

The statement can be rewritten as a corollary:

"The only runner who can be removed from a base occupied to bat in the proper place is the batter-runner who has been taken off the base by the umpire as in (2) above."

But this statement is false.

The more I look at this, the more I think it may the worst written rule in the book. Quite an achievement for its author.

[Dakota]

What am I missing, greymule?

Runners irrelevant. B1 due up. B2 bats. B2 gets a hit. Defense appeals BOO. B1 declared out. B2 is the proper batter now due up. B2 removed from base and bats in the proper place. This is enforcement of 7-2-C-2, right? B2 is removed from base, right? B2 now bats in the proper order, right?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Well, it's either:

I'm one of the smartest ****ing umpires in the world because I completely understand the rule as worded.

or

I'm one of the dumbest ****ing umpires in the world because I completely understand the rule as worded.

Go figure.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Well, it's either:

I'm one of the smartest ****ing umpires in the world because I completely understand the rule as worded.

or

I'm one of the dumbest ****ing umpires in the world because I completely understand the rule as worded.

Go figure.

I know which one I think it is!

[greymule]

What am I missing, greymule?

Runners irrelevant. B1 due up. B2 bats. B2 gets a hit. Defense appeals BOO. B1 declared out. B2 is the proper batter now due up. B2 removed from base and bats in the proper place. This is enforcement of 7-2-C-2, right? B2 is removed from base, right? B2 now bats in the proper order, right?

It is enforcement of 7-2-C-2. However, B2 is not removed so that he can bat in his proper place, as part 4 seems to imply. He is removed because he was an improper batter and the defense appealed. Whether he is to bat or not, he is still taken off the base. This is where part 4 fails. There is no reason whatsoever for part 4 to mention part 2. When it does, it creates unnecessary confusion.

I too never had any problem understanding the rule, but it was not because I read the book. It was because I knew the baseball rule and figured out that ASA was following that, though I admit I had a hard time with part 4 and eventually gave up on it, assuming the literal interpretation didn't quite match what they really meant. Had I relied on the book alone, I would not have understood the rule.

In all honesty, I would be interested to know why some people have no problem understanding the ASA book and why others, like me, have such a hard time with it. It may boil down to the fact that different readers have different expectations from the book.