ASA State JO, 12U

R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, B3 due up to bat. B9 steps to plate and reaches 1B on infield single.

Before next pitch, defensive coach appeals. I call B3 out, return both runners, and bring B4 up to bat.

But what about B9 now camped on 1B. Logic says she can't stay there, but I find no reference in ASA Rule or Case books to remove her. (The only reference to remove her is if she is the next scheduled batter.)

I finally applied a NFHS rule and sent B9 to the dugout. No one objected, but then no one else knew the rules (including available umpires and UIC).

Do you agree? If so, please provide rule and interpretation.

WMB

Sorry, but this one should have been a no brainer. BOO is quite simple. If caught prior to a pitch is made to the next batter or all the good stuff at the end of the game, everything is nullified with the exception of any outs made by the defense when the wrong B became the BR. Therefore, B9 was never there which means B9 is in the dugout.



ASA 7.2.C.2

I assume that you are interpreting 7.2.C.2.b that any advance made as a result of the improper batter becoming a B-R also appies to the improper batter, not just the other runners affected.

If true, then why do you need a separate rule (7.2.C.4) to remove the B-R from the base to bat again? That rule is redundant if 7.2.C.2.b automatically removes the B-R from the base.

Conversely, if "B9 was never there" (the NFHS interpretation), how can you get an out on B9 if she grounded out rather than hitting safetly? The "any outs" in 7.2.C.2.b would only apply to runners that really were there.

WMB

WMB, you've returned both runners and given B3 out. Thats OK!
For what to do with B9, I've got to ask you: What if runners were on 1st and 2nd base (instead on 2nd and 3th)?
You've got to return the runners, so there's no space anymore for B9 on the bases. So she MUST be placed back on the bence. B4 comes up at bat...
Nullify all actions from B9 (the wrong batter) also includes her beïng on the bases...

Good calls & great games,
Alex

You know, I felt this was a set-up, but responded anyway. We went through this before about a year ago. Doing it again just isn't worth the effort.

You know, I felt this was a set-up, but responded anyway

NO, IT IS NOT! Why do you have to be such a jerk, Mike? Mine was an honest request seeking a logical and clear answer to what appears to be another case of the book being poorly written.

The book clearly states that No runner is to be removed from the bases except when the batter runner is required to bat.

Conversely, it is clearly logical and rational that the B-R should be removed from the base even if she is not going to bat again - and that is what I did in the game. Then I spent time researching the rule book and case book seeking a definitive answer to support my action. In my mind it is not there, so I came to this board. If there is a clear answer, state it. Otherwise let's agree that this is another area of poor text and we will live with it and make the correct call in spite of the text.

After all, nobody enforces 8.1.B.2 - we do allow a batter to run on an uncaught third strike even if 1B is unoccupied.

WMB

Leaving aside whether or not Mike is a jerk... ;)

He's right - we discussed this very same logical issue with the ASA book about a year ago.

Your call was correct for ASA.

I am interpreting 7.2-C(2).b to include removing the incorrect batter-runner if she is still on base, but to keep the out if she made an out, if appealed before the next pitch. This does not state B9 was never there; it says to nullify the advances resulting from the improper batter becoming a batter-runner. To me, that would certainly include the batter-runner. The 7.2-C(2).c EXCEPTION then becomes the exception(as only 1 of 8 possible wrong batters would fit that condition), not the general rule.

Conversely, 7.2-C(4) does NOT exist for a redundant removal of the batter-runner; rather, it exists to tell you NOT to remove an incorrect baserunner that hasn't been properly appealed, and may be on base while her scheduled batting position comes up. It refers to a situation OTHER than removal in reference to 7.2-C(2).b (clearly suggesting, I might add, the assumption that 7.2-C(2).b-c tell you to remove the batter-runner even if safe).

If only the search function worked!

You are correct, it was a complete overreaction to your post. My apologies for that.

This board beat the hell out of this last year. I mean seriously beat it to death. Personally, I don't see your issue as it reads clear as a sunny day to me.

Save the reference to #2 in #4, one paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with the other. #2 refers to a properly appealed BOO and the incorrect batter being taken off the base. #4 refers ONLY to an incorrect batter which attained a base and was not properly appealed.

I recall the conversation then, but I pretty much only lurked at that time, and never saw the need to restate what another had stated (IMO) correctly.

If I am reading this correctly, Mike and I have the same understanding of these rule points and their intended meanings.