R1, no outs, 2-2 count on batter.

R1 off with the pitch. Umpire calls the pitch a ball and the throw to 2nd is late.

B2 thought pitch was a strike and walked to the dugout. BU up 3B line a little watching play at 2B and did not notice ODB stepping in the BB. On the next pitch, umpire rules ball four and awards B3 first base.

As B3 trots to 1B, here comes the defense's manager. What are you going to do?

Without looking for a casebook ruling, here's my "off the cuff" response. I reject "abandonment" as a ruling, since no one made that call when it happened, and I won't apply that after the fact (nor can we back into it; if we noticed, no one would have ruled the next pitch ball four). I reject a do-over; the offensive coaches needed to be accountable for the batter knowing the situation, same as being responsible for runners knowing the count.

I believe my ruling is batting out of order; same as if B3 had the complete turn at bat for B2, B3 completed the at bat.

My knee jerk response..
B3 did abandon her turn at plate and PUs brain fart not withstanding...

I got b3 out for abandoning her turn at bat / new pitch was made to new batter afterwards, B4 at bat with 1-0 count.

------------------------------------

after digging around and specifically researching AltUmps BOO ruling.. i muddied the water for myself..

I only have my ASA2004 book.. 2005 ran away or something.. anyway in ASA 2004 .. it says 7-2-1

If BOO is discovered while the incorrect batter is at bat, the correct b atter must take the batters position and legally assume balls and strikes..

---------- It would seem to me that if you as PU play the BOO card, you get a "do over"..

Interesting case play.. I'll read others responses, i know in a game today i would have just called the batter out as that was my initial response here

---------------------------------

Hey its not our fault, all softball players look alike.

This wouldn't happen in my game. Preventative umpiring would not have allowed B4 up to bat for ball four.

There's no way you can retroactively call B2 out, and rule a 1-0 count on B3. What if B3 had hit the ball. All actions by both teams would be based on an assumption regarding the number of outs - you can't go back and add an out.

B2 is allowed to go to the dugout during an at bat (perhaps she wanted a new helmet, bat, etc) - there's no abandonment here.

B2 can even be substituted for during an at bat. If B2 had actually been the wrong batter, and B3 the correct batter, offense can switch them with a 3-0 count without penalty.

So you have no grounds for an out on many levels. What you have is B3 completing this at-bat, and doing so out of order. Apply the BOO rules just as if B3 had taken all 4 pitches of this at bat. B2 is out for not batting, B3 is sent back to the plate with a 0-0 count, R1 is still on 2nd.

(Edited to correct player numbers)

[Edited by mcrowder on Feb 8th, 2006 at 11:10 AM]

If B3 is the next batter in the lineup, B2 is out for abandoning her "at bat." And count on B3 is 1 -- 0.

If B3 is an unannounced substitute, she is out upon completion of her "at bat." This occurs when she is awarded first base with the BB. The defensive coach is required to bring the issue to the umpires, which the coach did in this scenario. Upon confirmation that B3 is an unannounced substitute, B3 is out.

If B3 is an announced substitute, she gets the BB.

B4? There is no B4 in this scenario.

Is it me or did this sitch go way off base...

1 - There is no such thing as a do-over

2 - As Ed points out, where did B4 come from; not involved in this at all.

3 - This can only be either abandonment or BOO; there is no substitution issue to discuss, B3 was (assumed) already in the game and in the batting order.

4 - I agree that there is not abandonment in this scenario therefor we are left with BOO.

As this is BOO, the defense waited for the play to end, BB, and before the next pitch, legal or illegal, they have successfully appealed BOO and the correct batter, B2, is out, B3 takes her proper turn at bat with a new count and 1 out in the inning. And in case there was a question, R1 is allowed to remain at 2B from the steal. JMO

I'll go with BOO, as said, it's too late for abandonment anyway. B2 is just as out on BOO as B2 would have been on abandonment. B3 now bats with 0-0.


Why does B3 trot to 1st if she thought it was her first pitch?

If B3 stays at the plate, is the B2 turn-at-bat still completed, in terms of B2 returning and assuming the 4-2 count?

Sorry - I fixed the B3/B4 and B2/B3 errors in my above post. My bad.

The long and short is, this is BOO. B2 did nothing illegal, and can't be retroactively called out for abandonment. B3 batted out of order - treat it as such.

Because the rookie umpire said, "Ball four, take your base!"

Mike rarely offers a "what if/third world play" for our consideration, so when he does, you know it's going to be a good one!

I tried to tackle this one step at a time and was surprised at the answer I was led to.

1) B2 is the proper batter. She is the proper batter up until which time her at bat is completed- that is, until she is either retired or becomes a runner. Neither has happened here. It is still her time at bat.

2) B3 is an improper batter. She has assumed a position at bat before the preceding batter's turn at bat was completed.

3) B3 received one pitch- a "ball"- before the defensive manager approached the umpire. (I'm guessing that he then brought the improper batter to the umpire's attention. It doesn't really say that he did!)

4) What is the prescribed remedy when an incorrect batter is discovered before she has completed her at bat? The proper batter takes her place and assumes the same ball-strike count.

That would leave us with...

B2 being returned to the plate and assuming the incorrect batters count of 1-0?

Doesn't seem right, but if I take it step-by-step, that's where I end up.

And, of course, R1 remains at second. Her advance is legal and has no bearing on the outcome of this play.

A couple of "by the ways"...

- What is the "abandonment rule" that posters keep refering to? Please cite a rule number, because I don't see an "abandonment" rule in the book that covers this play.

- In as much as Mike's question is "what would you do" and not, "what would be the proper ruling" (maybe there isn't one?) what I might do if presented with this odd play on the field and having only a moment to sort things out, might wind up being something totally different than the logical deduction attempted above.

If there is no accepted ruling covered in the rules, then we might be in rule 10-1 territory!

- While it is easy to say, "This would never happen in my game", the fact is the chance of this happening in one of my games would be slim-to-none.

With a 2-2 count, most likely I have just given the count, both by hand and verbally. If the pitch is a "ball" it will be verbally announced. If it is a called strike, believe me the batter is going to know she was out!

As "asleep at the wheel" the umpires in this play seem to have been, the whole fiasco could have been prevented with the most basic of umpire "ball/strike" mechanics.

Bret, is there a rules reason for wiping out the count (3-2) accrued by B2 when B3 steps in? I can't find any support for this idea. To me, it's 3-2 when B3 steps in. When she takes a 4th ball, she is now a batter batting out of order who has completed her at bat (via a base on balls). When defensive manager points it out, B2 is out for failing to bat, and B3 is back at the plate, 0-0.

MC:

Conversely, I can find no rule that says an improper batter assumes the count of a proper batter who has not completed her at bat.

By what rule does B3- an improper batter- assume B2's 3-2 count?

Either there is an approved ruling for this play- which, hopefully, Mike will furnish- or we are at the mercy of rule 10-1, where "the plate umpire has the authority to make decisions on any situations not spefically covered in the rules".

If it's the latter, then I would be tempted to bring B2 back to the plate to resume with a 3-2 count, which seems like a fair fix. And I'm still leaving R1 at second!

If there is an approved ruling, I suspect that when Mike supplies the answer most of us will be smacking our foreheads and saying, "D'oh! Why didn't I think of that!".

OK, I'm sorry - but this is just silly. You can also not find a rule that if B2 goes to the dugout to change bats, when she returns to the batters box she must assume the count from when she had the original bat. It's assumed. Balls and strikes don't just disappear because the personnel has changed.

You will find no rules that I'm aware of that even mention the term "assume the count". It's assumed. Previous counts to batters don't just disappear unless the inning ends. You'd need to have a rule or ruling to show why a count would vaporize.

Take this scenario to the extreme... B2 goes into the box, gets 2 strikes on her. B2 exits the field and B3 takes her place. Next pitch is a strike. Do you have a strikeout? Of course you do. The pitcher threw 3 strikes. Whether the substitution was legal, illegal, or just out of order, the previous count doesn't just go poof.

If the offensive manager sends in a sub for a batter with a 3-2 count on them, it's 3-2 when that batter takes their place in the box. No rule says this, it's common sense.

In this case, as any other, from the pitcher's point of view, it's 3-2. New batter? So what. Still 3-2.

Why? How is this fair? What if the pitch was a strike, not a ball? The pitcher has now thrown 3 strikes. You're penalizing the defense for offensive mistakes or shenanigans.

PS - I'm leaving R1 at 2nd as well. No matter what you rule, I can't see any reason to put R1 back.

Obviously, but is she sleeping or cheating? (amusement, not part of the case)

You have an improper batter who was awarded a base after one pitch. The appeal by the defense was made prior to the next pitch to the next batter. The original batter is declared out and the improper batters' at bat is negated and she is returned to the dugout. The next legal batter is now in the box.
The advance by R-1 is legal.

The umpires could have easily prevented this.
Rule 7-1-2

mcrowder,

Take it easy there, big fella! Just offering up some opinions on a situation that isn't covered in black-and-white by the rule book.

If you can find some rule-based precedence that has B3 carrying on the count of the previous batter, who has not completed her time at bat, then I will defer to your ruling.

If we are considering B3 to be an improper batter- ie: a "new" batter- don't most new batters start with a "fresh" count?

As for your contention that, "You will find no rules that I'm aware of that even mention the term "assume the count"", I was not offering that phrase as as a verbatim rule book quote. However, there is one rule, even if you are not aware of it, that says exactly that.

If you check the rule regarding batting out of order you will find a phrase that is essentially identical: "If the error is discovered while the incorrect batter is at bat, the correct batter must take the batter's position and legally assume any balls and strikes".

In other words, "assume the count".

As for the other part of you post, where you asked, "How is this fair?", in response to one solution I proposed, the count on B2 actually would be 3-2 before the umpires game management went south and allowed B2 to think she was out when she wasn't and allowed the wrong batter to take her place in the batter's box. In effect, that solution would re-set things to exactly how they should have been before things got out of hand.

Not a perfect solution, perhaps. But, lacking a definitive rule-based solution, perhaps the best solution.

Having said all that, and having gone on much longer than I intended, and now having the luxury of a rule book in front of me which I didn't when first posting, another solution comes to mind.

I think I'll save that one for a little later this evening. In the meantime, I bet that Mike is enjoying watching us all go round and round!

Speaking ASA

First off, I would love to know why so many people are in love with the word "abandonment". There are no rules which constitute an out, ejection, disqualification or anything else except maybe a divorce for a 7-day a week umpire for abandonment. I believe the only time the word is mentioned in the rules is in conjunction with an active runner entering dead ball territory. Please note: "active runner. There is no such rule referring to the batter.

All players were in the line-up at the time, so there are no illegal players, unreported substitutes or re-entries to address.

R1 legally advanced during a legal pitch to the legal batter, so there is no issue here.

B3 goes to 1B for whatever reason. For as much as we know, that player's appearance in the box could have been intentional. ;)

B2 did not complete the at bat. Once a pitch is thrown to B3, the PU can no longer rectify the situation by bringing back B2.

The defense complains the wrong player advanced to 1B. This leads the umpire to discover the BOO. Even though the defense didn't protest using the term "batting out of order", their complaint initiated the "investigation", so I'm going to accept that as if they did mention BOO.

B2 is ruled out for failing to bat. Since B3's at-bat is negated by the BOO ruling, that batter returns to the plate to begin anew with a 0-0 count.

BTW, get use to the "not down to the dirt under the fingernails" specific type of scenario. ASA's test is only 50 questions, but some are very vague and will make you think twice, especially for those who frequent this and other boards.

Ok, it's later in the evening, I've had a chance to get a good dinner under my belt and a rule book in front of me. I've had the time to dig around for a rule-based solution to this play- a luxury we don't have when faced with making a call on-the-spot and on the field.

Assumming that this isn't a situation where we get to apply "the God rule", as mcrowder calls it over on the "Look Back/Obstruction" thread, I tried to find specific rules that might apply here.

I first tried to determine the status of B2.

As this sequence begins, the status of B2 is that of a "batter". She is a "batter" until her at-bat is completed. She has not yet been called out, nor has she become a "batter-runner".

Despite walking to the dugout with a 3-2 count, she is still the proper batter and remains as such until she has completed her at-bat.

Until B2 completes her at-bat, what is the status of B3? By definition, she is the "on-deck batter". That is, she is the offensive player whose name follows the name of the batter in the batting order. She does not attain the status of "batter" until B2's at bat is completed.

By a strict reading of the rule and definition, B3 has never become a "batter". Therefore, she cannot be considered as having become an "improper batter".

That shoots down the batting out of order theory.

So what rule fits this situation? How about this: Let's consider B3 as an unreported substitute and an illegal player.

By definition, an illegal player is a player who takes a position in the lineup, either on offense or defense, who does not have a legal right to the position. Seems to fit.

Using the above rulings, the sequence then becomes:

B2 has a count of 3-2. She then leaves the game. B3 checks in as an unreported substitute. As a substitute for a batter whose at-bat has not been completed, she assumes the 3-2 count. Another pitch is thrown. At that point B3 becomes an illegal player. Umpire calls ball 4. B3 heads down to first.

Defensive coach protests. The penalty is that the illegal player is called out and then disqualified.

After the dust settles, we have one out, R1 is on second and the next batter is whomever is substituted for the disqualified B3. If no substitute is available for the disqualified player, then the team may continue playing under the short-handed rule.

And, I hope to God that I'm never so negligent to ever allow this to happen in one of my own games!

***Mike obviously posted his answer while I was typing this one. So much for this "theory"! Jeez, he makes it sound so simple!

[Edited by BretMan on Feb 8th, 2006 at 10:41 PM]

A question. It seems that some posters are suggesting that the umpire should have taken action to correct the situation when B3 came to the plate.

Is it appropriate for an umpire to call B2 back to the plate? As I read the scenario, the PU called the last pitch to B2 a ball. The offense has coaches on the field and people in the dugout, none of whom told B2 to go back to the plate or who asked for clarification of the call. Should the umpire intervene to take away an out from the defense?

Mike,

Please clear up a question about your ruling.

Here's the point that I'm tripping over. When B3 first comes into the batters box, what is her count? Is it 3-2? Or, is it 0-0.

For your ruling to work, we must start B3 off with a 3-2 count. Under what rule or interpretation does B3 assume the count of B2?

EdJW; it is appropriate for the plate umpire to restate the count as 3-2. At that point, one might assume someone on the offense would see the miscue, and fix it. The one point missed by many, and I am assuming as a result of the OP, is that PU doesn't see the swap of players. I think the OP says BU goes toward 3rd (appropriately) in the holding zone to protect the play where R1 is stealing; I am thinking that is a typo, meaning PU, and PU does not realize the wrong batter has stepped up

Bret; what happens when a legal sub is brought in with a 3-2 count? The rules are clear in the scoring section who gets credit for the strikeout or a walk, and this it is clear that a legal sub assumes the current account. Why would consistency not mandate that an illegal sub, an unreported sub, or even another player batting out of order, assume the standing count? In my mind, that is a given. The current batter has not completed the current at-bat, the third out is not made, therefore the current count stands.

Mike; "abandonment" is a false ruling related to 8-2.D, when a batter-runner fails to advance to first base and enters the team area, and 8-7.U, when a runner abandons a base and enters the team area. I have heard (as, I am sure, have you) of many cases of incorrect rulings attempting to use that premise where batter-runners did not head directly to first, or, in this case, where someone who is neither a runner nor a batter-runner left the field. It doesn't apply, and we (most of us) know that; I was answerering that as a being incorrect before it was suggested.

I am gratified to see that, after all the dust clears, my initial statement still seems to stand. We have BOO; and nothing else, really. The rest is over-analysis. R1 stays on 2B; B2 is out on BOO. B3's at-bat (the final pitch to B2's at bat) is nullified, and is removed from 1st. B3 is now at bat with a fresh count. ASA 7-2.

First off, try not to overthink the play.

Remember, B3 steps into the box without the umpire's knowledge. Setting aside the umpire's lack of diligence for the sake of the scenario, the umpire still has 3-2 on the batter that is supposed to be in the box.

As an umpire, with a 3-2 count, you call a ball, step out from behind the plate, remove your mask and observe the play at 2B. When the play is over, you move back to your position in the slot, set your mask, check your indicator and the count is 3-2.

B3 assumes nothing as they are not supposed to be there. That is why it is BOO.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:

B3 assumes nothing as they are not supposed to be there. That is why it is BOO.

That's a point that trips me up.

If "B3 assumes nothing", then isn't her count 0-0?

If her count is 0-0, then one pitch is thrown- a ball- and the count becomes 1-0. At that point the defensive coach protests.

If we apply the BOO rule, the improper batter was discovered while still at bat. The correct ruling would be to replace her with the correct batter (B2) who then assumes B3's ball/strike count (1-0).



Steve:

I understand what happens when a legal sub is brought in to replace a batter- she assumes that batters count. This is, of course, not a legal substitute.

An illegal sub or unreported sub would also inherit the same count. But, if we resolve this play with the BOO rule, B3 can be neither of those.

You bring up the rules in the scoring section, but I see nothing in the scoring section of the ASA book that addresses who gets credit for the at bat when a batter is subbed for before her at bat is completed. So, no, the rules are not clear in the scoring section on this point. I believe that, by convention, the replacement batter is credited with the at bat, and the result of the at bat are added to her stats.

Another scoring convention is that when BOO happens and the proper batter (B2) is declared out, she is not credited with an at bat or plate appearance.

If B2 had no plate appearance, how can any pitches be considered to have been thrown to her, let alone a count accumulated and transfered to another batter?

As you say, consistency would "seem" to mandate B3 assumes the 3-2 count, and I would agree if B3 was a substitute, either legal, illegal or unreported. But if we resolve this play with the BOO rule, she is none of those.

Other than our "gut instinct" or feel for "consistency" what rule or interpretation justifies B3 assuming B2's count on this play?

Or, is it as Mike posted and "B3 assumes nothing"?

Bret - I think the easiest way to say this is that in ANY situation that does not involve the inning ending in the middle of an at bat, if ANYthing happens that changes the person standing in the batters box without the first batter completing her at bat, the count remains the same. I cannot think of an exception. If there is an exception, it would be spelled out in the rulebook.

I think a precedent here for changing batters (not via substitution - but between batters already in the lineup) is set in the rules telling us that if B3 comes to bat in B2's slot, and doesn't complete her at bat, with B2 coming in to finish the at bat. We have no foul or penalty in this sitch. Clearly what matters regarding BOO is "What batter completed the at bat?" If the proper batter (B2 coming back in to finish), no foul. In the OP, we have B3 coming in to complete B2's at bat - since the person who completed the at bat is not the proper batter, we have BOO.

mcrowder,

Thanks for the well-drawn explanation. That does seem reasonable enough and follows some manner of rule convention.

Good dialog, guys!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BretMan

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA Quote: B3 assumes nothing as they are not supposed to be there. That is why it is BOO. That's a point that trips me up. If "B3 assumes nothing", then isn't her count 0-0? If her count is 0-0, then one pitch is thrown- a ball- and the count becomes 1-0. At that point the defensive coach protests. If we apply the BOO rule, the improper batter was discovered while still at bat. The correct ruling would be to replace her with the correct batter (B2) who then assumes B3's ball/strike count (1-0).

I'm sorry, but I don't know how you cannot grasp this. This is extremely simple. If the umpire didn't realize it was a different batter, how would the count have changed?

Let's try it this way.

First batter reached first safely, so you now have R1 with no outs.

The next action is B3 going to 1st base.

Was there an out or new runner between the two events? No.

That means that the second player due to bat in the inning was B2. Is B2 mentioned in any action yet in this inning? No. Since the defense addressed B3's existance prior to a pitch to B4, the odd-player-out cannot be dismissed, therefor, B2 is out for failing to bat.

Since this was before a pitch to B4, the previous advancement on the play which ended the batter's "at bat" is nullified. That means B3 is removed from 1B.

The next batter is that which follows the batter ruled out for failing to bat.

That brings B3 to the plate with a 0-0 count.

ASA Rule 7.2.C.2

Yes, the concept of "batting out of order" and the penalty ascribed to it are rather simple. The point I was trying to have cleared up was about B3 "assuming"- or inheriting, or continuing, however you want to put it- B2's ball and strike count.

In trying to get a clarification, I posed the question, "Under what rule or interpretation does B3 assume the count of B2?".

Mike, you followed with a post that stated, "B3 assumes nothing".

I took your statement literally. It seemed to be a direct response to the question I asked, and I took that to mean the count for B3 would be 0-0 when she erroneously came to the plate. In other words, the count would be as if "she assumed nothing".

If that were the case, the enforcement of the BOO penalty would be quite different than the solution you had offered.

Clear up the count on B3 as she enters the batters box- it is 3-2- and the rest is easy to grasp. Unfortunately, our slight miscommunication made things less clear for me.

But now, things are crystal!

[Edited by BretMan on Feb 10th, 2006 at 10:06 AM]

You guys (even Mike) have this ALL WRONG!

This was obviously a confused and inexperienced umpire. When confronted by the defense, he is even more confused and looking for the easy way out.

Here is the result:

Umpire rules after-the-fact that it was, indeed, a strike three on B2 and B2 is out.

"Yes, coach (to the offense), I called it a strike. You can't argue balls and strikes."

The count is 0-1 on B3. Call B3 back to the box to continue her at bat.

Simple.

You guys are obviously too experienced to see the real-world solution to this! :D :D

You are obviously spending too much time on eteamz. Besides, the pitch to B3 was a ball. That is unless you intend to call every pitch a strike :)

Sad, but true. I'm visualizing Sam as the offensive coach and Eddie as the defensive coach! What a rhubarb!