This scenario was posed as part of the NZ Rule exam. I am curious to see how you would have answered.

Batting line up is B1, B2, B3 etc. In the bottom of the seventh innings, with the game score tied up, B5 hits safely. B6 hits into a double play (B5 is played out at second and B6 is played out at first), for two outs. Neither batter 7 nor batter 8 have been batting very well in the game so the coach elects to bat B9 in place of the correct batter.

B9 is subsequently struck out for the third out of the innings. Before the defence leave the infield the coach appeals for B9 batting out of order.


Would you as the plate umpire allow the appeal?

If so, who is the third out of the innings?, If not – why not?

Who is the first batter for the next innings?

And who is the runner that starts at second base for the tie-breaker innings?

New Zealand uses ISF rules which for the most part align with your ASA.

Allow the appeal,
which has B7 out for batting out of order.
B8 is the lead off hitter for the next inning
and B7 is placed at second for the international tie breaker.

[Edited by scottk_61 on Apr 6th, 2005 at 07:16 AM]

Since we never want to take an out off the books allow all.
B10 or B1 is 1st batter next inning, & B9 goes to 2nd.

I believe I am with Chuch on this. This weekend i our State Clinic. We had Henry Pollard here. He gave an example of this play.


Am I right on this Jel?

Absolutely

Quote:

If so, who is the third out of the innings?, If not – why not?

B7

Quote:

Who is the first batter for the next innings?

B8

Quote:

And who is the runner that starts at second base for the tie-breaker innings?

B7

[b][quote]

How do you figure? B7 is going to be declared out, the inning is still over.

By allowing B9 to be the last out, you have rewarded the team which intentionally violated the rules.

The play Henry gave had the defense appealing the next half inning as I recall. Because they had left the field prior to making the appeal they lost the right to the appeal. If it were done this way, B9 would have been the last legal batter (legal due to no appeal in prior inning) making B10, (or B1 if batting 9) the next legal batter starting the eight inning, and B9 would start at 3B for the ITB.

This case has a proper appeal, Mike has the proper answer.

The coach took a gamble and lost.

Okay, I was a little off. Thanks Jel!

Not to high jack this thread and all but,

Did you enjoy the clinic?

Oh Yeah, it was fun.

Anytime I can sit and discuss softball AND eat all the donuts I want, it's cool!

We had 2 new guys there, (one was a girl though) and even though we didn't get a chance to do any on field work, the rules sessions and mingling with other umpires really helped them as well. One remarked to me later, "Boy, I have a lot to learn". Don't we all!

Huh?
No out taken..........
Oh I see, Mike has addressed this already.

Man, Chuck, you must not have been awake this morning when you answered this one.

Lets make this one a mulligan.

mmmm so you can have a 4th out not to remove a run??
 

More info needed
 

NZ,
could you explain a little more...I even sent your question out to a Kiwi (Mark Anderton) and he couldn't tell me...I think what you are asking is you would recognize a fourth out - which might prevent a run from scoring - but wanted to be sure that's what you were asking about.

bkbjones - more info reqd
 

We have three outs already.
The double play on B5 & B6. And also the strikeout on B9.

Yet I am reading umpires giving an out on B7 for failing to bat also.

That's 4 outs.

I am only aware of accepting an appeal for an additional out to remove a run - yet no run has scored in this scenario.



[Edited by nzumpire on Apr 6th, 2005 at 09:43 PM]

Re: bkbjones - more info reqd
 

Yes, but if the team which obviously cheated would possibly benefit by avoiding part of their batting order that, demonstrated by their own actions, was not doing that well for the game.

You can look at this play two ways.

ISF 10.1.n instructs an umpire not to apply a ruling which would benefit the offending team.

Or, as a matter of rule(ISF 7.2.c&d, ASA 7.2.C), the defense took full advantage of the appeal process afforded them to appeal when the offense bats out of order.

ISF Rule 7 Sec 2d Effect 2b states:

" ... Any out that is mnade prior to discovering this infraction, remains out."

Hence the out on B9 stays - He is the 3rd out of the innings.

Further, ISF Rule 8 Sec 9j Effect 4 states:

"Additional out appeals can be made after the third out as long as it is made properly and are made to remove a run."

There is no run being removed here, so it is not applicable to accepting the appeal.

In our game, it is not only the players but also the coaches who are getting smarter.

In this scenario, the defence coach realised batting out of order was the play. He too took a chance that B9 would not be out, prior to the appeal. Undoubtedly if B9 had hit the ball over the fence, the appeal would have disallowed the runs and B7 would have been declared out (as many of you were quick to point out) and the tie-breaker would have seen B8 in the box with B7 on 2nd base.

To take the "easy" way out and quote R10 Sec 1n would not help you when the protest was lodged.

I'm sure you will debate this until the cows come home but, we kiwis are having to get as smart as our World Series winning coaches.

I have no doubt the ruling would be sustained. I quoted ISF for your convenience, but remember who the ISF Dir. of Training and Dir. of Umpires are.

These are men I've been listening to for years at local, regional and national clinics along with the seminar at which I received my ISF certification. You cannot deny the defense the right to appeal a BOO.

Remember, like ASA's book, not every scenario is printed in the ISF rule book.

So now we decide if a team cheats or not .
We can for illegal gloves , bats etc.
Can you say coach you have cheated in batting out of order No 9 is not out .
Hell I can see a protest and in top level in the states if money is involved a court case .
Apply the rules as they are no matter how frustrated you are.
An appeal cannot be taken for a fourth out unless it is to negate a run .
End of story

In the scenario, you are not saying B9 is not out.
You are allowing a proper appeal of batting out of order.
Yes B9 is out but for PURPOSES OF APPEAL, the proper batter is out.
Which will cause the offending team to have to go to the correct batting order next inning which prevents them from "cheating" and skipping the two weaker batters which is what they were trying to do in the first place.
I am very sure that Merle and Henry would uphold this ruling.
I have been taught by them personally and in clinics for many years.
I have been to the ISF school, have worked ISF games etc.
It is as Mike says in his earlier post.

In general situation of a game, "An appeal cannot be taken for a fourth out unless it is to negate a run"
but this is a specific one that comes up different.

I encourage you to contact Merle through the ISF website if you don't think Mike or I am correct.