I noticed a change of wording in the ASA book regarding the ruling after a proper appeal of BOO (before the next pitch, etc.).

It's 7-2-D-2-b in both 2005 and 2006:

This wording first appeared in 1999, and ran through 2005:

"Any advance or score made as a result of the improper batter becoming a batter-runner shall be nullified. Any out that is made prior to discovering this infraction, remains an out."

2006:

"Any advance of runners and any run scored shall be nullified. All outs made stand."

Incidentally, in 1998, this was the wording:

"Any advance or score made because of a ball batted by the improper batter or because of the improper batter's advance to 1B as the result of obstruction, a hit batter, a walk, dropped third strike or base hit shall be nullified."

Apparently in 1998 outs made on the play didn't stand. (I was umping then, but I can't remember.)

My question is, Does the 2006 wording reflect a change of rule? For example, do we now nullify all advances made during the at bat of the improper batter, say, on a stolen base?

ASA 2006 7.2.D If BOO is discovered:
1. While the incorrect batter is at bat...Any runs scored or bases run while the incorrect batter was at bat shall be legal...

2. After the incorrect batter has completed a turn at bat and BEFORE a legal pitch [yada, yada]...Any advance of runners and any run scored shall be nullified.

I doubt it as the base would have been stolen regardless of who was at the plate. The exception would be if the stolen base took place on the pitch upon which the batter became the BR and then the BOO was properly appealed.

<b>The exception would be if the stolen base took place on the pitch upon which the batter became the BR and then the BOO was properly appealed.</b>

Therefore, is this the correct ASA ruling?:

Abel on 2B, no outs. Charles bats in Baker's spot. On ball 4 to Charles, Abel steals 3B. The appeal that Baker failed to bat in the proper order is upheld.

Baker is out and Charles bats again. Because Abel's advance took place on the pitch on which the batter became a baserunner, Abel must return to 2B.

This may well be the correct ruling, since "any advance" seems all-encompassing, a departure from the now-deleted "as a result of the improper batter becoming a BR" and the older "because of the improper batter's advance to 1B." And with the removal of those clauses, "any advance" could be interpreted to mean advances that occurred on previous pitches during the at bat, though I doubt that ASA intends that.

I wish this were clearer.

Since this wasn't bolded or shaded, I suspect this was meant to EASE our understanding, not cloud it, and was not intended to change the way we were previously ruling.

I would still allow Able's advance.

I wouldn't under the scenario just offered. To the best of my recollection, I don't believe any runner may advance during any offensive violation.

Mike, we have always allowed a runner who advanced due to events unrelated to the batter retain their bases. I've never heard you make this statement before, and I KNOW I'd have disagreed with it had I heard it.

I don't know. I think 7.2.D.2.b clearly states that a runner which advances during a BOO must return.

Remember, there is only a BOO violation (ASA) between the time the batter becomes a BR and the next pitch, legal or illegal or play. Prior to or after that period, there is no BOO violation.

Guess you didn't read the whole thread.

Until this year, the rule has said, "Any advance or score made as a result of the improper batter becoming a batter-runner shall be nullified. Any out that is made prior to discovering this infraction, remains an out."

This whole topic is about whether the change to the current wording was intended to CHANGE this so that in the case discussed, Able would not be allowed to advance from 2B to 3B on a 4th ball BOO.

But before this year, Able has been allowed to advance to 3B on a 4th ball passed ball BOO, or on a steal during the 4th ball. The advance was not "as a result of" the improper batter becoming a BR - it was just simultaneous with it.

If you are telling us that ASA intended this to be a change, it sure wasn't mentioned in our clinic, or highlighted in the changes section... and this would be a significant change.

My opinion is that this was not intended to be a change, but a clerical clean-up with possibly an unintended effect. But you are certainly in a better position to tell us if this was intentional.

No, I read the thread this probably was just housekeeping. I understand what is being said and I'm not totally against it. The only case play to support what you were saying involves a BOO appeal, but not the improper batter becoming a BR.