BOO question- sorry if this is a repeat

[MD Longhorn]

OK, I believe I see the issue. The comment is misleading. VERY misleading. It does not match with the rule, and is not in line with every OTHER thing I've seen or read regarding this rule. Now I see why you're saying what you're saying.

That comment, as printed here, is wrong.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Yes, I read the same thing above and it is also exactly the same thing they published when the rule changes were announced last year.

My last point was that the only thing there saying to enforce the out (made by the improper batter-runner) in co-ed is the "comment" at the end.

The "comments" explaining rule changes usually are not printed next to the rule in the rule book. If the "comment" is not printed next to the rule, then the rule itself does not say to enforce the out (made by the improper batter-runner) in co-ed.

Okay...who has their 2013 rule book?

Don't need it. The rule is worded improperly which was brought to KR attention and to which he agreed at the NUIC Clinic.

There is an "exception" to something that is not included in the rule.

There is nothing in the rule which gives the umpire the authority to rule the incorrect batter out at any time in any game. THE EXCEPTION for Co-ed Only states that if you do rule the incorrect batter out (which the rule does not permit), you just skip their turn at bat if they were due to bat. IOW, the old rule applies.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There is nothing in the rule which gives the umpire the authority to rule the incorrect batter out at any time in any game. THE EXCEPTION for Co-ed Only states that if you do rule the incorrect batter out (which the rule does not permit), you just skip their turn at bat if they were due to bat. IOW, the old rule applies.

The exception I'm reading doesn't say that. It says if they are put out during their at bat (which gets negated when appealed)... not if you rule them out during the appeal (which the rule does not permit, as you say).

IOW - in the OP, you rule Mary out (a), you rule Mike out (b), you skip Alice (exception), and Fred is the batter (exception).

But if, in the OP, Alice does NOT get out (say she hits a single instead), then Mike is out (b), and ALICE is the correct next batter.

I hate arguing with Irish because I'm always wrong ... but the rule as printed here (and elsewhere) doesn't match what you said, and the exception DOES make sense within the context of the rule ... just the COMMENT does not.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I hate arguing with Irish because I'm always wrong ... but the rule as printed here (and elsewhere) doesn't match what you said, and the exception DOES make sense within the context of the rule ... just the COMMENT does not.

Let's forget the personification of a play, even for co-ed.

The "at bat" of the incorrect batter is negated. Says so right there in the rule. So, if the incorrect batter did not bat, how can s/he be ruled out?

The whole thing is a mess. I NEVER have an issue with the BOO and have a hard time believing anyone actually changed a rule that worked and was appropriate simply because the scorekeepers were not smart enough to figure it out.