Anyone notice a difference in this years version of the Rule from
last couple of years? Was the ruling that "Any outs on the play stand" taken
out intentionally? If so should not it have been noted in the Major Editorial
Revisions section?
Also under Penalty 2. the EFFECT portion has been deleted.

Or, I could be making too much out of it.

Assume you are referring to Section 1. The EFFECT portion was not deleted. It was simply included in the Penalty. Although the words "Any other outs on the play stand" were deleted, this is still implied, as the statement is still there that "All runners who were not declared out must return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.".

Whiskers: ”Was the ruling that "Any outs on the play stand" taken out intentionally?”

Yes.

Smiley: ” Although the words "Any other outs on the play stand" were deleted, this is still implied”

No.

The NFHS finally got it right with respect to BOO violation penalties. NFHS never wanted the infamous ASA BOO “triple play” where the out on a runner stands, and the out on an improper batter stands, AND an out is called on the proper batter.

Originally the NFHS rule read that “an out for batting out of order (the proper batter) supercedes an out by the improper batter on a play.” Thus you only get ONE out on a batter – that of the proper batter. Whatever the improper batter did (got on base, or was out for any reason) was simply ignored. Send her back to the dugout and start over.

In 2003 NFHS re-wrote Rule 7 to closely follow ASA 7, including picking up the words “any outs on the play stand.” I challenged NFHS on this and received an “administrative change” from Mary Struckhoff to ignore the new verbiage and to use the 2002 “supercedes” interpretation. I posted that here, though obviously it did not reach the majority of high school umpires in the country.

In 2004 NFHS changed the words again to read: “The umpire shall declare the batter who should have batted out (not the improper batter). Any other outs on the play stand.” The word “other” was supposed to convey other runners, not the batter-runner. But it still didn’t work, because most of you still believed that you could get three outs on a BOO violation.

Finally, NFHS has made it very clear what they want called. ”The improper batter’s time at bat is negated and she is returned to the dugout. In other words – she never existed! If she is on base (walk, hit, etc), take her off. If she struck out or flied out, erase it from the books. And if she is the next batter in the lineup, send her back to the plate.

Under some circumstances you can still get three outs (two runners and the proper batter), but one of those outs will not be the improper batter.


”If so should not it have been noted in the Major Editorial Revisions section?”

As you can see, Whiskers, this rule has been changed 4 times in 4 years and never documented. But that is not unusual; both NFHS and ASA perform undocumented wordsmithery every year, sometimes with results that lead to very different interpretations.

WMB

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't pick up on the negated wording being added and still rememebered the superseded wording; therefore, I did not perceive this as a change.

This should have been noted as at least a major editorial change.

If I'm reading this thread correctly, I think it is a damn shame.

Negating an effort by the defense because of a violation by the offense.

So it's possible for the defense to turn a double play to shut down a rally only to have the offense get a second shot due to a situation they created.

WMB,

Tom, Thanks. Bascially what Walter Sparks told me when I queried him.

Finally a player can go "poof". :D

I think it is a damn shame.

No its not! The defense is getting a free out. A batter is called out; what more do you want? If the improper batter reaches first safely, the defense still gets a free out! So if the improper batter does not reach first safely, why should you get two outs?

IMO, this is an area where ASA rules are unfair and unnecessarily punitive. I think the NFHS rule is logically correct.

WMB

WMB, if what you are saying is correct, this is a major change. In the past, Mike's play would have resulted in two outs. The runner at second and the proper batter. The out by the improper batter would have been superseded. Are you saying because the time at bat is negated, the out at second is also negated? Too bad there's not a case play.

WMB, if what you are saying is correct, this is a major change. In the past, Mike's play would have resulted in two outs

In ASA Mike's play results in three outs. R1 at 2B, B-R (improper batter) at 1B, and then proper batter is called out for failing to bat in turn.

In NFHS, the same play results in two outs. R1 at 2B, B-R's out is negated, and proper batter is called out.

Are you saying because the time at bat is negated, the out at second is also negated?

No, only the individual actions of the improper batter are negated. If she struck out, flied out, grounded out, walked, hit a single, was hit by the ball, hit a HR, or was called out on appeal for missing 1B - it didn't happen. But the results of other runners will be adjusted. If they advanced or scored, they will be returned. If they were put out, the out stands.

WMB

Thanks. That's the way I understood it. In that case, this is not a major change, but should have been noted as a major editorial revision.

"NFHS" and the word "logic" in the same sentence?

I believe you and NFHS are wrong on this issue. The improper batter put the ball into play. The defense dutifully turned a double play even before the BOO is discovered.

Why should the defense lose the out they EARNED on the field because an opposing player failed to do their job?

There is absolutely nothing unfair with ASA's rule.

Look at it this way. They don't lose an out, they get to choose which out to take. If they choose not to appeal the BOO, they get the out earned on the field and the proper batter has lost her turn at bat.

Weak argument. Why should the defense not get every out they earned? The defense executed a play which retired two offensive players. The defense was also alert enough to realize the defense violated a completely separate rule in the book and properly appeal it.

Umpires always note that it is inherent upon the teams to know the rules and how they apply. Well, here you have a team that apparently meets that expectation and what do they get for it? Bumpkiss!

We are going to just need to agree to disagree on this one. I really shouldn't expect the Fed to understand this.

Regarding FED, as WMB has stated, they liked their rule on BOO and intended to keep it. Unfortunately, that intent got overlooked when Rule 7 was sync'ed with ASA's rules, wherein most of the Feb rule book adopted most of the ASA's wording and organization of rules.

The harmonization of the rule books was a good thing, it just took Fed too long to correct the error, so the ASA rule became part of Fed's rule book. Even so, in the interim, they (meaning some rule interpreters, exam writers, etc.) offered interpretations to the effect that their old rule should prevail, but, since this contradicted the wording in the book, enforcement was (at best) uneven.

Keeping out of the good or bad issue...