I'm in slight disagreement, for the sake of discussion. This was not caught until after a play was made. 8-7-Y says "...following any conference" ... not a play. So in the OP, a play has gone by, and one runner has scored (not on any base.) I find it hard to enforce 8-7-Y after the play has been made.

However... arguing the other way, say the runners switch after the conference, and it's noted before a play. Switch them back, no harm, no foul. Nothing has been done at this point to offend the defense. Following this logic, the rule must be in the book to deal with the situation after a play.

Flopping back to my first point, when would we stop enforcing the rule? After 2 plays have gone by? One pitch?

An AR or interp from ASA would make all this a lot easier.

Separate from what's being asked in the OP, from a mechanics standpoint, what was the BU paying attention to during the conference???

No harm, no foul? So you quote part of 8-7-Y, then advocate just switching them back when 8-7-Y happens? The ASA book is very clear on what to do if this is caught in time. 2 outs and an ejection (at least). Not "switch them back, no harm, no foul".

After a play - I understand your questioning of it. Part of me sees this like a BOO - too late to fix (although if I can't call the runners out because of the intervening play, I'm definitely tossing the coach). The other part of me sees stretching "following" to include this, after all, it doesn't say IMMEDIATELY following. I think I'm leaning toward the latter.

So if the EFFECT for 8.7.Y read something like.....

"Each runner on an improper base shall be declared out when such action is discovered by or brought to the umpire's attention by the defensive team prior to or after the completion of the at bat that was in effect during the offensive conference.
In addition the manager shall be ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Would that adequately and fairly cover all scenarios?

Yes, if you can talk yourself into "following a conference" including "following a conference and an interceding play".

My point in "no harm, no foul" is similar to having an improper batter at the plate - in the middle of the at-bat, you can replace the improper batter with the proper batter ... 'no harm, no foul.' While yes, 8-7-Y says we should have 2 outs and an ejection, my point is that, immediately following the conference and immediately prior to any play, why couldn't we put them back on the correct bases with "no harm, no foul?" The defense, at this point, hasn't been yet offended.

So in other words the rule as stated would never be enforced? If no harm no foul before the pitch, and unenforceable after a pitch, just when do you enforce it?

Because the only no brainer on this question is that if this would have happened immediately following the conference and immediately prior to any play, you'd have 2 outs and ejection. When, exactly, would you apply 87Y if not then?

The ACTUAL difficult part of this question is whether we can enforce 87Y after a play.

When you two get finished arguing about this, who buys the drinks?:D:D:D

Well I never professed to be a rule writer.:rolleyes:

Absent an interpretation/AR from OKC, as currently written I can't see how.

But the offense attempted to cheat.

OTOH, the rule does not include the words "immediately" or "play" in any capacity. This is one of the rules that was put in the book with an effect intentionally meant to be punitive. And even if a play did occur, you are still in a time period "after any conference" :D

Loophole to How a team scores?
 

Offensive coach would surely know the run should have counted and argue for it.

This NCAA ruling isn't listed as an exemption to scoring a legal run in rule 6, section 1.

?? You lost me here. NCAA 5.6 covers lineups. What post were you replying to?