Batting Out of Order, Volume 2

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[vcblue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by vcblue

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.

[Dakota]

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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 think I said this.....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

So what?