Boo

[MD Longhorn]

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA;678449]You do not take a "proper batter" off the base to hit, why would you bring back the "proper batter" who made a recorded out to come back?QUOTE]

Actually, I think you just made my point for me... You do not take a proper batter off the base to hit because the rulebook specifically tells you not to. If what you're asserting is the way they intended it, they would not have needed to tell us again.

In fact, I believe there was a case play with two different BOO's about 5-6 years ago that wouldn't have been BOO (on the 2nd one) if what you're asserting is what they intended ... so, now I have to dig through old books.

Is there a higher authority to ask this of?

Let me ask this... B1 singles... B6 strikes out... B2 ruled out for not batting, B6's out stands, 2 outs, B3 is up. B3-5 all hit. If B7 comes up, I have BOO again. If B6 comes up... do YOU have BOO?

Further... B1 singles ... B6 singles, B1 is thrown out at third base advancing... B2 ruled out for not batting, B1's out stands, remove B6 from the bases... B3-5 - NOW who do you have up?

[greymule]

B1 singles. B3 then bats out of order and hits into a 6-4-3 double play. The defense appeals the BOO.

ASA: B2 is out for failing to bat when he should have. The double play stands. Three outs, inning over. B4—correction: B3—leads off the next inning.

Fed: B2 is out for failing to bat when he should have. B1's out at 2B stands. B3 bats again with 2 out.

NCAA: B2 is out for failing to bat when he should have. B1 returns to 1B, and B3 bats with 1 out.

[MD Longhorn]

[QUOTE=greymule;678479]B1 singles. B3 then bats out of order and hits into a 6-4-3 double play. The defense appeals the BOO.

ASA: B2 is out for failing to bat when he should have. The double play stands. Three outs, inning over. B4 leads off the next inning.
[QUOTE]You sure? Playing devil's advocate here, but what rule prevents:

DP stands, B2 is out. Next inning... the last out of the PREVIOUS inning was B2. B3, who has not batted this inning, is up.

[greymule]

Oops! You're absolutely right. The next inning puts B3 up again. The parallel example is right in the "clarifications."

Thanks.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by greymule

Oops! You're absolutely right. The next inning puts B3 up again. The parallel example is right in the "clarifications."

Thanks.

I should probably know this, but you're saying the exception:
EXCEPTION: If the incorrect batter is called out as a result of their time at bat and is scheduled to be the proper batter, skip that player and the next person in the line-up will be the batter.

only applies with in the inning. Don't have my rule book here, can somebody post that part of the rule for me? I would definitely have kicked this by bring B4 up to start the next inning.
________
California Dispensary

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You sure? Playing devil's advocate here, but what rule prevents:

DP stands, B2 is out. Next inning... the last out of the PREVIOUS inning was B2. B3, who has not batted this inning, is up.

B3 does not bat next in ASA because B3 made an out which stood in the previous inning. Since that out (back end of the double play) stands, B3 loses that turn. You cannot have a scoresheet that both marks an out to that batting spot and then allows it to bat again.

B3 does bat in NFHS and NCAA, because that out is negated in both rule sets.

[greymule]

Here's a cut-and-paste from the ASA clarifications:

Play 2: With one out, B7 is scheduled to bat, however B8 bats. B8 hits a fly ball that is caught for the second out of the inning. The defense appeals that B8 batted out of order and the umpire calls B7 out for the third out of the inning. Who is the leadoff batter in the next inning?

Ruling: B8. In this case, since the second out of the inning was made by B8 and the third out was made by B7 for failure to bat in the proper order, B8 is now the leadoff batter in the next inning. When the batter declared out is the third out of the inning the correct batter to leadoff the next inning is the player who would have come to bat had the player been put out by ordinary play. (Rule 7, Section 2 D 2 d)

Apparently the scorekeeper has to use an asterisk or draw an arrow or something.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

B3 does not bat next in ASA because B3 made an out which stood in the previous inning. Since that out (back end of the double play) stands, B3 loses that turn. You cannot have a scoresheet that both marks an out to that batting spot and then allows it to bat again.

B3 does bat in NFHS and NCAA, because that out is negated in both rule sets.

There are no rules I'm aware of that depend on how something looks in the scorebook... and in MANY BOO situations, you have exactly that - a scoresheet that both marks an out to a batting spot and then allows it to bat again.

AUS (another one I'm loath to disagree with!), what RULE tells you that B3 doesn't bat next in ASA in the inning AFTER BOO happened? And what does the clarification mean if that's true?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

There are no rules I'm aware of that depend on how something looks in the scorebook... and in MANY BOO situations, you have exactly that - a scoresheet that both marks an out to a batting spot and then allows it to bat again.

AUS (another one I'm loath to disagree with!), what RULE tells you that B3 doesn't bat next in ASA in the inning AFTER BOO happened? And what does the clarification mean if that's true?

I admit I had forgotten about that "clarification"; it makes no sense to me. Frankly, I think it is wrong, but it comes from the official source.

Exact same play as the "clarification" with no outs, and B9 bats with two outs. So, how can it be correct, be logical, or even make sense that B8 leads off the next inning in the same play with one out?

Oh well, I must be wrong.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Oh well, I must be wrong.

'bout time you got back in the game.

This is one of those things that is not supposed to happen in a game. It used to be so simple and then they decided to keep the outs. That was a good thing and I had the rule applied in my first game of that year. Two batters, three outs. Gotta love it.

But then things like this came about. Personally, not having the batter which already made an out bat again makes complete sense. The player had the chance and failed to reach base safely, same as the batter who had their opportunity to bat and did reach base safely.

So I'm sort of curious as to why anyone would think a player should get a second opportunity to achieve success, or failure just because someone on their team (maybe even themself) screwed up.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

...And what does the clarification mean if that's true?

It apparently means that another clarification is required!

[greymule]

it makes no sense to me

me, either

Well, just add it to the pile of rules that make no sense, like the one that allows the offense to benefit by committing deliberate interference.