ASA rules:

A team is playing with 10 players, DEFO/DP. The DEFO is listed tenth in their line-up. The DP is batting 3rd.

The first time through the batting order, the DEFO improperly comes to bat after the 9th hitter under the mistaken belief that she is the 10th hitter.

After one pitch is thrown to her, the defense says, "What gives?"

How should the umpire handle this?

In my opinion, this is *not* a batting out of order situation.

Second part of this question:

Same situation as above except the defense does not catch the fact that the DEFO is improperly batting. The DEFO strikes out and the leadoff hitter comes to the plate.

The leadoff hitter walks. It then dawns on the defense that something is wrong. The defense claims that the batter who just walked has batted out-of-order.

What is the ruling?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

My thoughts on this situation would be.

Situation #1 - Replace the improper batter with the correct batter assuming the count. No batting out of order penalty while the batter is still up to bat. My only question there is - Does the DP position end because the DEFO came up to bat?

Situation #2 - Too late to appeal batting out of order. The appeal must be made before the next legal or illegal pitch. Again same question as above about ending the DP.

BOO is the proper call. The protest results in the proper batter assuming the count left by the improper batter. Unfortunately, ASA specifically addresses this in 4.7. The DEFO is now an Illegal Batter and DQ'd. A substitute is required if the team elects to continue using the DEFO.

In the second question, the DEFO/Illegal Batter is now simply DQ'd.

Mike,

Isn't it true that you can only have a BOO situation when a batter, already listed in the lineup, bats out of order?

The DEFO is not in the batting order. Therefore, she can not bat out of order. All she can be is an illegal batter. Different penalties apply - true?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Since the DEFO is permitted to bat for the DP, it is conceivable that she was to take part in the batting order. Only this year has the rule been changed to insist the DEFO & DP report to the umpire when interfacing.
Without reporting, the DEFO would still be considered an Illegal Batter.

Which way an umpire approaches the ruling is somewhat irrelevant as the penalty to the offensive team is the same for BOO and Illegal Batter with the exception that the latter also requires the disqualification of the individual player.

Mike,

How can 7-2 apply when this situation is specifically addressed, complete with penalties, in Rule 4-7B?

The DEFO coming to bat for any player other than the DP (or coming to bat for the DP without reporting) is an illegal batter, not BOO. I would have thought - here I go again ;) - if BOO was to <u>also</u> apply, that it would have been mentioned in the effect section for 4-7B, or at least in the case book. The case book conveniently only has situations where the DEFO is discovered while still at bat.

It is a bit moot in the first situation, since the DEFO is still at bat when discovered, but suppose the DEFO had completed her turn at bat and a pitch to the next batter had not been thrown? In that case, the penalty WOULD be different.

Suppose DEFO gets a base hit and is on 1st. Defense appeals before the next pitch.

With BOO, DEFO is removed from the base, runners return, B1 is declared out, and B2 comes to bat. If you <u>also</u> apply the ILLEGAL BATTER rule, then DEFO is also OUT and DQed. Two outs and B2 comes to bat.

If only the ILLEGAL BATTER rule applies, then DEFO is out and DQed and B1 comes to bat.

Tom,

I only dealt with the situation offered. I only suggested that it was conceivable the DEFO could bat for the DP and mistakenly batted where her name appeared instead of the slot filled by the DP.

Not saying that was the cause, but just a possibility. And, yes, I would probably force the offensive coach to tell me exactly what was happening to make sure there were no misconceptions on the umpire's part only to hear about it after making a ruling.

Now, if you want to change the scenario, an umpire can have a lot of fun and still get the outs :D

* * * * *

Actually, the DP was batting in the #3 slot in the batting order. The DEFO batted as if she was the #10 batter. So no argument could be made that the DEFO was batting in her "proper spot" in the line-up but simply failed to report.

This seems to happen a lot. I've seen it many times where a team lists 10 players on their line-up card (as instructed by the rules) intending for the last one to be the DEFO. The players see the line-up and just assume they are all to bat in that order. The coaches don't realize the players' misconception and don't catch the fact that the DEFO comes to bat after the #9 batter.

In my opinion, if the DEFO completes her turn at-bat, the next batter automatically is batting out of order the moment a pitch is thrown. The definition of batting out of order is failing to bat after the batter who precedes you in the line-up has completed their turn at bat.

Once the DEFO has completed her turn at bat and a pitch is thrown to the next batter - no matter how illegal her at-bat was - it is now a done deal.

I would call out B1 for failing to bat in the proper order and have B2 come to the plate. Additionally, since it is now known that an illegal batter had participated in the game, I would disqualify the DEFO.

I'm not completely confident that this would be correct however.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

We need to settle on one scenario - yeah, I know, I also contributed to this being a multi-scenario thread.

I'm still vascillating on whether the BOO rule applies to DEFO coming to bat as B10 at all. I am leaning toward, NO, only 4-7 applies, not BOO. In my thinking, DEFO is batting for B1 illegally, not batting for DP both illegally and out of order.

The only situation where whether the call is BOO, Illegal batter, or both is moot is if the DEFO is discovered while still at bat. Otherwise, there <u><b>will be differences</b></u> in who is out and who is next up.

In your scenario, if you are making the assumption that DEFO is batting for DP unreported and out of order, then DEFO is an illegal batter <u>and</u> BOO, but her at bat (for BOO purposes) becomes legal once a pitch is thrown to B1.

So, DEFO is an illegal batter and is DQed, but is not declared OUT. (See 4-7 EFFECT a.3) The DP (or other legal sub) takes her place on base.

B1 is indeed, then, BOO, but since she is discovered while still at bat, she is replaced in the batter's box by B4 (the player due up after DP), who assumes the count. Remember - DEFO's at bat for BOO purposes becomes legal once the next pitch is thrown.

OTOH, if you assume DEFO is an illegal batter for batting in place of B1, then in your scenario, B1 is BOO (in effect, batting after herself), but since she is discovered while at bat, there is no penalty other than bringing the legal batter up to bat to assume the count. DEFO is DQed and replaced on base by B1, and B2 assumes the count, and no outs are assessed.

Which is the proper call? I'm leaning toward the latter.

It might be that a correct answer can not be determined, because any choice depends on an assumption not specified in the rules. Deciding requires assuming that either (1) the DEFO was batting for the DP (out of order) and did not report; or (2) that the DEFO batted illegally as B10 even thought that is "impossible"; or (3) the DEFO was an illegal sub for B1.


IGNORE THIS, SEE BELOW:
As the case was presented, it specifically said #2. Even without that, #2 is the easiest to believe; so if I had to decide, it's #2. That means DQ the DEFO, replace her with a substitute and do nothing with B1 or DP. Even if there are no remaining subs, the DEFO can be replaced by the DP.

[Edited by CecilOne on Jul 15th, 2003 at 10:22 AM]

OK, but take the last scenario David presented. Who ends up on base? Who bats next? Are there any outs assessed?

The problem with DEFO batting illegally as B10 as the basis for making a ruling, there is no B10. The legal batting order positions are B1-B9. If she is coming to bat, it <u>must</u> be for one of those positions (legally or illegally, in order or out of order).

I think I understand what you're saying. When the DEFO comes to bat improperly as B10, the only way to interpret it is that it is an unreported substitute for B1. And, an illegal substitute at that!

Fine, that would be easy to handle. But once the DEFO has batted and a pitch has been thrown to the next batter, rectifying the situation becomes problematic.

If the DEFO is on base and her hit advanced or scored other runners, what do you do about that considering that the count on the current batter is 1-1?

When B1 comes to bat immediately following B10 (the DEFO) and has already received a pitch, how do you handle the claim that B1 is now batting out of order?

This is pretty sticky.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

If you are going to assume the DEFO batted as an illegal sub for B1, then B1 appearing next is an illegal reentry. The DEFO is not a batter, so it's like any player not in the game appearing anywhere in the order.


IGNORE THIS, ALSO:
Even though there is only B1 - B9 (as I said, "B10" is "impossible"), that is what makes the DEFO an illegal tenth batter, confirmed when B1 appears.

[Edited by CecilOne on Jul 15th, 2003 at 10:25 AM]

I don't think there is any doubt that any situation involving the scenarios included in this thread could turn out to be disasterous and no matter which path the umpire travels, there will many claims and arguments and some unhappy campers.

I think you're right.

There are several ways to look at this, all of which have a basis in logic, yet have slightly different results.

Personally, I'd like to see an official interpretation on this because it is very common for the DEFO to bat as if she were the tenth batter.

Inexperienced scorekeepers are constantly befuddled by this. The scorekeeper is handed a batting line-up with 10 players and doesn't realize that the "10th batter" is not really in the line-up. Sometimes the players make the same mistake if left to their own devices.

I think it is probably a bad idea to submit the DEFO as the 10th spot in the lineup. I think a better way to do it is to put the DEFO along side the DP's spot in the order. That makes it much more obvious that both players are locked into that spot in the order and makes the type of mistakes like we are discussion less likely to occur.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN