Batting Out of Order, Volume 2

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I think what you're missing is that while the first pitch to B3 legalizes the previous at bats - it does not legalize B3! And if B1 was the previous batter ... B3 is not the correct current batter.

If B1 was the previous batter and B2 is on base and B5 stands up and takes a pitch, then B3 is the correct batter. If during B5's illegal at bat B2 scores and then the defense appeals that B5 is the incorrect batter, they are correct. The appeal is upheld and B3 assumes B5's count.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

If B1 was the previous batter and B2 is on base and B5 stands up and takes a pitch, then B3 is the correct batter. If during B5's illegal at bat B2 scores and then the defense appeals that B5 is the incorrect batter, they are correct. The appeal is upheld and B3 assumes B5's count.

Hmmm... given just this scenario, by what rule are you putting B3 at the plate instead of B2? At the time of THIS appeal, B1 was the previous batter, and B2 is not on base.

[RulesGeek]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Hmmm... given just this scenario, by what rule are you putting B3 at the plate instead of B2? At the time of THIS appeal, B1 was the previous batter, and B2 is not on base.

I'll phrase the question this way: Can a legal batter be "illegalized" during her at bat? There is no doubt (at least to me) that B3 was legal when she came to bat. But does she become illegal the moment B2 scores (or is picked off, or steps off early, or whatever)?

Or, once she entered the batter's box legally is she entitled to stay?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by RulesGeek

I'll phrase the question this way: Can a legal batter be "illegalized" during her at bat? There is no doubt (at least to me) that B3 was legal when she came to bat. But does she become illegal the moment B2 scores (or is picked off, or steps off early, or whatever)?

Or, once she entered the batter's box legally is she entitled to stay?

I think you mean the scenario where b2 bats for b1, b1 bats for b2, and then b3 comes up to bat. If so, NO B3 was not legal when she came to bat. The correct batter when b3 came to bat was b4. B1 had just batted out of order for b3 and since no pitch had been thrown, b4 was still the correct batter. B3 became the proper batter when she took a pitch because her name was the first name after the last proper batter (b1) who was not on base.

[RulesGeek]

Originally Posted by youngump

I think you mean the scenario where b2 bats for b1, b1 bats for b2, and then b3 comes up to bat. If so, NO B3 was not legal when she came to bat. The correct batter when b3 came to bat was b4. B1 had just batted out of order for b3 and since no pitch had been thrown, b4 was still the correct batter. B3 became the proper batter when she took a pitch because her name was the first name after the last proper batter (b1) who was not on base.

I mean ANY scenerio where the proper batter is on base and gets off the bases before the at bat is complete. That is the question asked by the OP in the abstract, without complicating it with names and numbers.

In your scenario I agree with your rulings.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by RulesGeek

I mean ANY scenerio where the proper batter is on base and gets off the bases before the at bat is complete. That is the question asked by the OP in the abstract, without complicating it with names and numbers.

In your scenario I agree with your rulings.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[vcblue]

Guys this is really simple. Once a pitch is thrown to B3, B1's time at bat is legal (ASA 7-2-3). Because B2 is on base at the time of the first pitch to B3, B2 is skipped in the Batting Order (7-2-4) and B3 is now the legal batter.

And, because she is the legal batter there can be no BOO. The bottom line... We have nothing. "Sorry DC you should have appealed before the first pitch to B3."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by vcblue

Because B2 is on base at the time of the first pitch to B3, B2 is skipped in the Batting Order (7-2-4)

But 7-2-4-D doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything about where the proper batter might be when the first pitch to the wrong batter happened. It STARTS with "If batting out of order is discovered:" The whole rule - all four sections - hinges on when BOO is discovered.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Hmmm... given just this scenario, by what rule are you putting B3 at the plate instead of B2? At the time of THIS appeal, B1 was the previous batter, and B2 is not on base.

I might conceivably call for B2 to bat if I did not know she was the player who just came off the bases, and I didn't go to the official scorekeeper to help me with the situation. But since I do check the official book when I work out a batting-out-of-order appeal, I would hope that the scorer would enlighten me to the fact that B2 was the runner who started out at third base. Then I would call for B3 to bat.

Remember, at the moment of the first pitch to B5, that legalized B1, so B2 should be the proper batter. But at that moment, B2 was on base, so she gets passed over and B3 becomes the proper batter. Subsequent play while B5 is up to bat doesn't change that fact, so an appeal after that first pitch to her has no bearing on the situation. There is no rule or interpretation that says a batter who has becomes the proper batter (in THIS scenario, B3) can suddenly become improper during subsequent play.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Remember, at the moment of the first pitch to B5, that legalized B1, so B2 should be the proper batter. But at that moment, B2 was on base, so she gets passed over and B3 becomes the proper batter. Subsequent play while B5 is up to bat doesn't change that fact, so an appeal after that first pitch to her has no bearing on the situation. There is no rule or interpretation that says a batter who has becomes the proper batter (in THIS scenario, B3) can suddenly become improper during subsequent play.

2-D-4 does not state any of this. 2-D-4 simply says that we do not remove players from the bases if BOO is discovered during an at bat. But if B2 is not on base when BOO is discovered, why would B2 not be the correct batter?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

2-D-4 does not state any of this. 2-D-4 simply says that we do not remove players from the bases if BOO is discovered during an at bat. But if B2 is not on base when BOO is discovered, why would B2 not be the correct batter?

Because the legalization of B1 took place when the first pitch was delivered to B5, by 2-D-3a. And by 2-D-3c, the next batter becomes B2 at that moment, and at that moment, she's on the base. And by 2-D-4, she cannot be removed from the base at that moment, so B3 becomes the correct batter.

You seem to be hung up on when the BOO is discovered. That is immaterial. What counts here is when things become legalized, and that happens the moment the first pitch was delivered to B5. There is nothing that allows for a batter--B3 in this case--to start out proper and then become improper during an at-bat.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Because the legalization of B1 took place when the first pitch was delivered to B5, by 2-D-3a. And by 2-D-3c, the next batter becomes B2 at that moment, and at that moment, she's on the base. And by 2-D-4, she cannot be removed from the base at that moment, so B3 becomes the correct batter.

You seem to be hung up on when the BOO is discovered. That is immaterial. What counts here is when things become legalized, and that happens the moment the first pitch was delivered to B5. There is nothing that allows for a batter--B3 in this case--to start out proper and then become improper during an at-bat.

I'm not "hung up" on it. When BOO is discovered is how rule 7-2-D is written. In fact, the first words of 7-2-D are "If batting out of order is discovered:" and then giving 4 subsections telling us what to do based on when BOO is discovered.

I find no verbiage to indicate that the placement of runners at the beginning of an improper at bat matters at all... just directions on how to determine who the proper batter is, and then directions on what to do if the proper batter IS ON BASE WHEN BOO IS DISCOVERED (the opposite of WAS on base PRIOR to BOO being discovered).

Honestly, what you're saying makes sense, conceptually. And it may be what the rulesmakers intended... it's just not what the rule SAYS.

[vcblue]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm not "hung up" on it. When BOO is discovered is how rule 7-2-D is written. In fact, the first words of 7-2-D are "If batting out of order is discovered:" and then giving 4 subsections telling us what to do based on when BOO is discovered.

I find no verbiage to indicate that the placement of runners at the beginning of an improper at bat matters at all... just directions on how to determine who the proper batter is, and then directions on what to do if the proper batter IS ON BASE WHEN BOO IS DISCOVERED (the opposite of WAS on base PRIOR to BOO being discovered).

Honestly, what you're saying makes sense, conceptually. And it may be what the rulesmakers intended... it's just not what the rule SAYS.

There is no BOO so it does not matter when the appeal is made. B3 is the legal batter per 7-2-D-3 and 7-2-D-4. Play ball.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm not "hung up" on it. When BOO is discovered is how rule 7-2-D is written. In fact, the first words of 7-2-D are "If batting out of order is discovered:" and then giving 4 subsections telling us what to do based on when BOO is discovered.

I find no verbiage to indicate that the placement of runners at the beginning of an improper at bat matters at all... just directions on how to determine who the proper batter is, and then directions on what to do if the proper batter IS ON BASE WHEN BOO IS DISCOVERED (the opposite of WAS on base PRIOR to BOO being discovered).

Honestly, what you're saying makes sense, conceptually. And it may be what the rulesmakers intended... it's just not what the rule SAYS.

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.