NFHS BOO

[Dakota]

WMB brought up the ASA BOO rule book funny syntax issue again, so I thought turn-about was fair play.

No outs. R1 on 1B. B2 due up. B3 bats and hits a fly ball to F9 that is caught. F9 throws to F3 for a successful live ball appeal on R1.

Defense appeals BOO.

NFHS rules.

Call?

[WestMichBlue]

B2 is out for failing to bat.
R1 is out on successful appeal play
Two outs, B3 is returned to the plate.

Will the average person read that in the NHFS text? Probably not. It has always been the NFHS position that the actions of the improper batter are erased. If she gets on base - remove her. If she gets out - ignore the out. The results of the improper batter becoming a B-R are the same as ASA - no advancement of other runners; outs on other runners remain.

In 2003 NFHS re-wrote Rule 7 and copied much of the ASA text. Thus the out made by an improper batter would stand and you could get the infamous ASA Triple Play on BOO.

I questioned NFHS on that and the Softball Committee (M.S.) issue an "administrative ruling" to ignore the text and go back to the old ruling. (I posted that ruling here in 2003.}

In 2004 NFHS changed the text of 7.2.2 Effect; attempting to get back to the old interpretation. IMO, they didn't do it right and would have been better off bringing back the old text.

I have talked with members of the NFHS Committee and they do not want the out on the improper batter to stand. They just don't say it very well.

(But the case book is very clear about removing the improper batter from the base whether she is next to bat or not.!)

WMB

[Dakota]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Will the average person read that in the NHFS text? Probably not.

Definitely not, because that is not what the rule actually says.

NFHS Rule 7-1-2 EFFECT

The umpire shall declare the batter who should have batted out (not the improper batter). Any other outs on the play stand.

I'm not arguing the proper NFHS interpretation, although the proper interpretation was placed into further confusion by the Umpire Test (which graded allowing the out to stand as the correct answer). I'm only pointing out that the NFHS rule book still needs work wrt the BOO rule.

[officialtony]

Dakota,
Please help me out here.
Why would the defense appeal BOO?
They got two outs on the play.
Why not just let B4 bat?
What is the benefit to the defense of appealing?
It seems like a lot of work to get two outs anyway by appealing BOO.
Just curious.

Thanks.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by officialtony
Dakota,
Please help me out here.
Why would the defense appeal BOO?
They got two outs on the play.
Why not just let B4 bat?
What is the benefit to the defense of appealing?
It seems like a lot of work to get two outs anyway by appealing BOO.
Just curious.

Thanks.

First, it was a made-up play to illustrate an issue with the NFHS book. But, in the real world, if such an appeal was made it would be most likely personnel related - the defensive coach would rather face B3 again than B4. Maybe B3 is actually the #9 in the order and B4 is #1 (the B# designation merely indicates batting order for the play being described.) Or, maybe the defensive coach thinks the NFHS book actually means what it seems to mean and that he will get 3 outs from the appeal.

[officialtony]

Dakota,
Thanks for your reply.
While I did recognize that it was a hypothetical play, I got confused with the double play/triple play posts.
I would have called a double play upon appeal and thought for a while I was wrong by some of the other info I read as I read through the posts.
So . . . . . .
I checked the rule and - tho vague - it does appear that the incorrect batter is not out and the proper batter is.
So . . no triple play.
Understanding that, the only thought left to me was as you said. The coach did not want to face the subsequent batter in the order and wanted to take his chances with B3 again.
I was confused and now I'm not.
Thanks for the clarification.
I guess I would have made the right call, but not for the right reason until now.