There's an echo in here... :)

+1

Sounds good to me. Like I said, if you guys could come up with a good reason to honor the appeal, I could sleep at night. I just wish the wording were more clear. "All outs stand" to me sounds like they have already happened, even if you read the EFFECT literally and linearly. Can anyone find a casebook play or rule clarification that would support that the BOO out is applied first? I am well aware that it would solve all of the problems and potential situations, I'm just saying there's not much supporting evidence.

I'm not sure you really need a case-play here. We have a specific rule that tells us when the defense loses it's right to appeal. Having the 3rd out made during a play is not mentioned. I admit to a minor amount of ambiguity here - but when something can be read 2 ways, and 1 way is consistent with the other rules and the other is not --- go with the one that's consistent with the other rules.

Thanks everyone...sigh of relief that my call was accurate after all. Great discussion and contribution by everyone in the thread. It's this discussion and thought that makes me better as an umpire.

Bah. I never pay attention to Steve, anyway...


;)

The BOO out is applied first because it occurred first. The incorrect batter can not hit the ball w/o coming to bat incorrectly. As said, linearly (good word).

Normally I would agree but given a few of the specifics of the situation.

#1 "ruled it a catch and carry" I understand what this means but if it wasn't clearly indicated I could see some confusion. Base runner advancement could have been for an illegal pitch as opposed to taking the ball into DBT.

#2 "even though it was the second out, both of us indicated 1 out to the field" This adds to the confusion from #1 and I think lets the OC off the hook somewhat because if the batter had been ruled out on the previous play then it should have been two outs and it's reasonable that the OC thought that meant the ball was caught in DBT not caught in foul and carried to DBT.

#3 Plate umpire didn't remark on same batter still being up, Again this mitigates the OC's responsibility. PU wouldn't let batter continue after ball four or strike three, so why would she still be there if her at bat was complete.

Snocatzdad, here's a different perspective.

As the plate umpire, I don't pay any attention at all to the batting order as players come up to bat. I only pay attention when the coach is making substitutions or when the opposing coach is appealing a BOO.

Given the situation in the OP, IF I noticed the same batter had remained in the batter's box, I may have asked her if she knew she was out on the last play, but, again, it is the OC's responsibility to ensure the correct batter is up to bat, not mine. Recall, I was down the line watching the catch with my back to home plate. Unless I actually recognize the player, I may not notice whether the batter is the same player as before or a different player.

Umpires sometimes lose track of the number of outs; it is rare for BOTH partners to lose track at the same time, but it could happen. What the umpires signal to each other regarding the number of outs does not change the actual number of outs.

Perhaps the OC was as confused as to what happened on the previous play as his batter apparently was; if so, he should have asked for clarification. Or, perhaps he knew there were 2 outs, but when he saw the umpires signal 1 out decided not to say anything.

Regardless, even though the umpire crew may have contributed to some confusion by signaling 1 out, they are not required to explain terminology when making a correct call (i.e. "catch and carry") on the chance that one coach or the other may not understand it, and the plate umpire is not responsible for monitoring the batting order. The OP's situation and a routine strike out or base on balls are different; in a routine strike out or BOB, the PU is right there watching the batter. In the OP, he wasn't.