Batting Out of Order, Volume 2

[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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

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 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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

I agree with everything you say here. So we may be talking past each other a little bit.

Three situations to rule on if you would just so I understand your position exactly.

B2 singles batting for B1. B1 doubles. B3 comes up to bat and takes a pitch. Defense appeals that B3 is batting out of order.

B2 singles batting for B1. B1 doubles. B3 comes up to bat. B2 scores on a wild pitch. Defense appeals that B3 is batting out of order.

B2 singles batting for B1. B1 doubles. B3 comes up to bat. B2 scores on a B3 single. Defense appeals that B3 has batted out of order.

[MD Longhorn]

None of those three illustrate the relevant point. I think I agree with you (mostly) on all three of those that you just posted.

1) Appeal denied - B3 is the correct batter.
2) If appeal is honored, the only penalty here would be putting B2 in the box. So see below.
3) Appeal denied - B3 was the correct batter.

Here's the one I think we disagree on (pulling aside any fluff).

B2 bats for B1 and singles. B1 then bats advancing B2 to third. B2 scores on a wild pitch. B3 hits a single, scoring B1. THEN the appeal is asked for.

7-2-D-4 says that if AT THE TIME OF APPEAL, the proper batter was on base, that batter is skipped. But in this scenario, B2 was NOT on base when B3 singled. B1 was the previous batter.

The added wrinkle is this - given that there was nothing to alert umpires to any need to memorize who was on base at any point ... it's possible (maybe probable) that the umpire is unaware that B2 was on base way back at the beginning of B3's at bat. All he knows is that B3 just hit, and he might know that B1 just crossed the plate. Asking the scorekeeper (unless we've got a collegel level scorekeeper and not just some parent) MIGHT get us the information that B1 was the kid that just scored on B3's hit, if PU didn't happen to notice and/or everyone was already in the dugout when this appeal is made.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

3) Appeal denied - B3 was the correct batter.

Let's stick to this one for a minute if we could.

B2 singles batting for B1. B1 doubles. B3 comes up to bat. B2 scores on a B3 single. Defense appeals that B3 has batted out of order.

I agree that the appeal should be denied. But I don't think that you doing so is consistent. AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL, b2 is not on base. So why isn't b2 the correct batter?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Here's the one I think we disagree on (pulling aside any fluff).

B2 bats for B1 and singles. B1 then bats advancing B2 to third. B2 scores on a wild pitch. B3 hits a single, scoring B1. THEN the appeal is asked for.

We do disagree if you're planning to call B3 out. This only differs from the previous one in that B2 scored a pitch sooner. But at the time of the appeal B2 is not on base.

Let's get really wild here with your theory. Is this all right? B3 bats followed by B2 and then B1 and all are walked. B4 takes a ball and then a wild pitch which scores B3. Not wanting to press his advantage the coach appeals that B4 is batting out of order and insists that B3 take over. You oblige. The pitcher throws wild and B2 scores. The coach insists that B3 is now batting out of order and insists you put B2 in the box. You oblige.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

I agree with everything you say here. So we may be talking past each other a little bit....B2 singles batting for B1. B1 doubles. B3 comes up to bat. B2 scores on a B3 single. Defense appeals that B3 has batted out of order.

Well, since B2 is no longer on base, B3 is an improper batter so her at bat is nullified, which puts B2 back on base, so B3 is the proper batter.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, since B2 is no longer on base, B3 is an improper batter so her at bat is nullified, which puts B2 back on base, so B3 is the proper batter.

What does B2 not being on base have to do with any of it? Let me save you the trouble, nothing.

[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.....

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Andy

I think I said this.....

Yes, you did. I thought maybe it needed to be said again. But, then, perhaps saying it again won't help, either.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

So what?