BOO question- sorry if this is a repeat
 

This question was asked elsewhere but I did not see an answer. WHO starts the next inning ??? Alice or Fred
.
Rule change for ASA.

Rule 7 Section 2D [2]: If batting out of order is discovered after the incorrect batter has completed a turn at bat:
a. The improper batter’s time at bat is negated.
b. The player who should have batted is out.
c. Any advancement or score of a runner as a result of the improper batter is negated. Runners not called out must return to the last base occupied at the time of the pitch. Any runner, who is called out prior to the discovery of the infraction, remains out
d. The next batter is the player whose name follows that of the player called out for failing to bat.
EXCEPTION: (Co-ed Only) 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.
Comment: Rewords the rule so if the Batter-Runner is called out that out applies to the batter who should have batted. All outs made by runners are still out. If the incorrect batter makes an out and is the next legal batter they simply bat again. The old rule of all outs stand including the batter runner and skipping the batter if they make an out and they are the next legal batter, still applies to the game of Co-ed.

If your line up is as follows:
1: John
2: Mary
3: Mike
4: Alice
5: Fred
6: Ann

Mary bats and gets to 1st base.
Mike is due up to bat but Alice gets up and hits into a double play.
The defence appeal batting out of order
Mary is still out for the double play. Alice is out but the out is recorded as being Mike.


The Co-ed exception says that if the incorrect batter is called out as a result of their time at bat and is scheduled to be the next batter they are skipped and the next batter takes up the bat.


So in my example Mary is out in the double play, Alice is out in the double play and then Mike is out for the batting out of order. End of the half and Fred is the batter due up????????

Am I getting this wrong?

Seems like Fred is it. Why have such a convoluted exception though?

For the OP...

- Mary is out. Any outs made by runners already on base during the improper batter's time at bat stand.

- Alice's time at bat is negated. She's not out. It's just like she never batted.

- Mike (the batter who should have batted) is out on the appeal.

Two outs. Fred is the next batter.

Because co-ed batting orders are by their nature convoluted.

Since we're talking co-ed here, the goal is to maintain the alternating male-female batting order. If Alice were to bat again, the rules would be forcing two same-sex batters to follow each other, which is not in the spirit of co-ed play.

The perceived advantge is that you could potentially have two male batters back-to-back, an advantage that is not intended by the rules.

Perceived, yes. Real, no.

I don't think this is correct.
 

In Co-Ed in order to maintain the male/female batting order the batter who batted out of order is not negated. That out stands.

What Bret said is right. Read the rule again, a step at a time.

My apologies if I inadvertantly gave the wrong answer. I was thinking that back when the new rules were announced last year, there was a discussion that the "comment" following the rule change was not accurate and would be amended.

Good thing I don't do co-ed slow pitch!

Now I have to wonder what the actual printed rule will look like (won't have my rule book for a couple of weeks). If it appears exactly as shown above, there's nothing in the rule that specifically says the out is enforced in co-ed.

The "comments" explaining the rule change generally don't get included with the published rule. Minus the comment, for co-ed the rule only says, "Negate the out and skip the batter". It doesn't say, "Enforce the out and skip the batter".

Here is the new rule with comments:
 

Rule 7 Section 2D [2]: If batting out of order is discovered after the incorrect batter has completed a turn at bat:
a. The improper batter’s time at bat is negated. b. The player who should have batted is out.
c. Any advancement or score of a runner as a result of the improper batter is negated. Runners not called out must return to the last base occupied at the time of the pitch. Any runner, who is called out prior to the discovery of the infraction, remains out
d. The next batter is the player whose name follows that of the player called out for failing to bat.
EXCEPTION: (Co-ed Only) 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.
Comment: Rewords the rule so if the Batter-Runner is called out that out applies to the batter who should have batted. All outs made by runners are still out. If the incorrect batter makes and out and is the next legal batter they simply bat again. The old rule of all out stands including the batter runner and skipping the batter if they make an out and they are the next legal batter, still applies to the game of Co-ed.

Exactly... and Bret said:
- Mary is out. Any outs made by runners already on base during the improper batter's time at bat stand.

- Alice's time at bat is negated. She's not out. It's just like she never batted.

- Mike (the batter who should have batted) is out on the appeal.

Two outs. Fred is the next batter.

All of this is correct. Which part do you think is not correct? (Note: If this was not a co-ed game, ALICE would be the next batter.)

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?

Are you two trolling me? :)

Yes it does... " b. The player who should have batted is out."

Mary is out. Mike is out. Alice is skipped. Fred is up.

This part is not correct:
 

Alice's time at bat is NOT negated.

No, but this starting to sound like an Abbott and Costello routine... :rolleyes:

MD, we aren't disputing anything about "the player who should have batted". On a BOO appeal, that player is always out, be it co-ed, men's, women's, slow pitch fastpitch, whatever.

We are talking about the improper batter. The batter who actually batted when she wasn't supposed to, not the one who should have batted.

Read the last sentence of the "comment" that follows the new rule.

That sentence states that, in co-ed play, an out made by the improper batter stands. This is contrary to all other divisions of play, where (with the 2013 rule change) an out made by an improper batter is negated.

Um... OK, why do you think that? Alice's time at bat is definitely negated (although the out on Mary is not). The comment doesn't change that. The comment simply means that she is skipped in the order and Fred bats next.

No sirs. It does NOT say that. Read it again.

"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. "

Skip that player. Not "disregard the entirety of the rest of the rule and do something different from every other code." Just SKIP. THAT. PLAYER.

The exception ONLY changes who the batter would be. That's all.

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.

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.

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.

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.