Batting Out of Order, Volume 2

[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.

[vcblue]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

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.