I don't have a current rulebook in front of me, but I do have an old one. In the old one, only the first three subsections contain the phrase if boo is discovered. From the literal text of that version (2005), I agree that one could read the rule to mean that the time of discovery is when everything is calculated. There are all sorts of problem with this rule if you try and read the text that literally. For example, discovery doesn't mean appeal, so you'll need to find out when the coach noticed not when they appealed. Then you'll note that in 2 it says that if the error is noted before a pitch is thrown or before the fielders have left fair territory. Well, it's almost always the case that it's noted before the fielders have left fair territory [that is it should say and].

I believe the rule is intended to make the previous batters at bat legal at the time of the first pitch. So in this scenario: B2 bats for B1 and gets out. B3 steps up and has a full count. I believe that at this point B3 is a legal batter even if no one ever notices that B2 was out of order. And when B3 hits a single and reaches and the coach saunters up and says B3 was batting out of order the correct batter should have been B2, I'm going to deny that appeal even though by the literal logic of the rule your propounding since B2 was never discovered batting out of order B3 is not the right batter.

My reply to you wasn't meant to touch on the general debate. It was meant to reply to this specific statement. "There is no doubt (at least to me) that B3 was legal when she came to bat." Which was not right. As for the abstract question, I'm pretty sure I've made it clear where I stand.

Yes B3 is the "right" batter. B3 has a full count therefore a pitch has been thrown making B2s time at bat legal and B3 follows B2

The "before they leave the infield" part is to cover the case where the wrong batter hits a walk-off OR the case (odd but possible) where they get the 3rd out on a play where the wrong batter had batted, and for whatever reason (possibly to save a run, possibly to put an advantageous hitter up first in the next inning) they want to appeal the BOO anyway.

There's no BOO here at all. B2 batted and the first pitch to the next batter made all of B2's at bat legal. B3 bats after B2. Nothing to puzzle out on this one.

Yes but the rule says if appealed before A or B. What it means to say if it's before either of those things happen. But taken literally it was appealed before one of the two things happened. My point here was that the rules are poorly written and you don't want to hang too much on the finer points of their wording.

That's correct but it goes against what you've been trying to say. You want to be able to correct the batting order when it's discovered in your weird case but not in the normal case.

If the first pitch made B2's at bat legal then it made B3 the next batter immediately. But you've pointed out that the rule doesn't say that. It says if the error is discovered after a pitch, then B2's at bat is legal.

If you rely on the when discovered language (and apply that to mean when appealed) then it seems you have to rely on it here too. And here, B2 was never discovered batting out of order so B2's at bat was never made legal. If B2's at bat was never legalized then B3 is batting for B2 (because B2 is due up after B1) and is out for batting out of order.

The conclusion is only ridiculous because contrary to the way the rule is written the batting order is meant to change as soon as a pitch is thrown.

Another ridiculously convoluted discussion on something so ****ing simple.

There is nothing wrong about the rule other than people continue to try and complicate things by massaging the rule with misinterpretations though the part of the rule under discussion is extremely simple.

My ruling is that once the pitch was delivered to B3, she became the legalized improper batter under rule 7-1-2 Penalty 4.

"When an improper batter becomes a proper batter because no appeal is properly made as above. The next batter shall be the batter whose name follows that of such legalized improper batter. The instant an improper batter's actions are legalized, the batting order picks up with the name following the legalized improper batter.

Since B1's at bat was legalized when a pitch to B3 was thrown, and by rule B2 can't be required to leave the base to become the batter, B3 is the legalized batter by rule (7-1-2 Penalty 6).

As a result in A and B, the appeal is denied. In C, I am not allowing this because it is making a mockery of the game, and under 3-6-13c.

I would also consider penalizing the DC under 3-6-13c if it was clear that he was telling his pitcher to commit an illegal pitch intentionally, and warn the pitcher if the was intentionally committing an illegal pitch (Casebaook 6-2-1).

Hear! Hear! This is very simple. Coach a pitch has been thrown. There is no BOO. B3 is the correct batter because B2 is on base and her turn at bat is skipped without penalty. Play Ball.

Except B2 is not on base... but why let that stop us.

Sorry if I brought up a horse that should have been dead before I brought it up. :)

Getting back to the OP: once the BOO has been appealed and ruled upon, it cannot be re-appealed later.

If the BOO is originally appealed "later" (e.g. when different runners are on base), then the appeal ruling will be based on that situation.

I'm not sure we ever left the OP. I agree with your first paragraph but as you may have gathered I disagree with your second paragraph.

If you were right, you'd have a mess on your hands. Just consider, suppose B2 comes home on a wild pitch. In your understanding B2 is now the correct batter, (only if someone complains that B1 was out of order?)?
But a smart coach isn't going to appeal now, he's going to wait for B3 to get a hit. So B3 is now on base and the coach appeals BOO. And he says, B2 should have been at bat because B1 was the last legal batter and B2 is not on base right now.

I think this is much simpler than you and MD are making it out to be.
A meaningful appeal of a batter batting out of order is either:
1) a claim that the guy who just became a batter runner was not the correct batter
or after a pitch has been thrown
2) a claim that the current batter is not the correct batter.

In 1, we look to see who batted before the BR and if that persons name is immediately before the person due up or everyone between them was on base at the start of the at bat then we deny the appeal.

You and MD are claiming that 2 works differently. But I don't see why or how it could without making a mess.

I think I said this.....

I don't see a mess at all. We don't control WHEN the appeal is made; we only rule on the appeal based on the situation at hand. You are making this WWWWAAAAYYYYY too complicated.

Yes, the ruling will depend on the actual situation at the time of the appeal. Period. Full stop.

It will not depend on the situation earlier if only the team had appealed earlier, and certainly not some theoretical situation that might happen later.