Batting Out of Order, Volume 2
 

Had a kid bring up a scenario at a clinic that I thought was rather interesting. The initial situation is similar to the one being used in the other thread, so I'll convert it to be more like that one.

Correct batting order is B1, B2, B3, B4, etc.

B2 bats first and singles.
B1 bats next and singles, B2 to third.
B3 takes a pitch and the defense appeals.

No one is ruled out by the umpire, as the pitch to B3 legitimizes B1's batting out of order and the proper batter (B2) is on base ... so B3 should be up to bat.

Coach orders his pitcher to commit an illegal pitch. B2 scores, B1 to 2nd, ball 2 on the batter.

Situation A: The defensive coach NOW appeals B3 batting out of order.
Situation B: The defensive coach waits for one more pitch to B3 and appeals.
Situation C: The OFFENSIVE coach sends in B2 to bat and assume the 2-0 count.

Rulings?

I'm missing something.....

Once the first pitch to B3 happens legitimizing B1's at bat, and since B2 should be the proper batter but is on base, B3 (who is at bat and has taken a pitch) is the proper batter.

Why does an illegal pitch change anything and allow any further BOO appeals?
So....

A and B - Appeal denied, the batting order is correct

C - I'm not allowing this, along the lines of not allowing an illegal substitution.

And if you did without realizing it, B3 could be out if AB completed and properly appealed.

A&B - So... how is B3 the proper batter after B1 if B2 is no longer on base?

My answer to him was if A or B happened, the remedy is simply to put B2 into the batters box. And that C is REQUIRED, not just allowed, if the offense wants to avoid BOO.

Say B3 completes their at bat with a single... wasn't B3 out of order since B2 was the proper batter and was not on base when B3 hit the ball?

B3 became the proper batter as B2 was on base and a pitch was thrown to B3. Dont see how B2 coming in to score could possibly reinstate a batting out of order situation.

I'm going to disagree....we had the BOO appeal, we ruled on it, fixed it, game moves on from here. B3 is the proper batter. Since B3 is the proper batter, her status doesn't change as a result of the next pitch.

What if, instead of an illegal pitch, it was just a wild pitch that allowed B2 to score and B1 to advance? Does that change anything? I'm still not allowing another BOO appeal.

If I am reading the OP correct we have nothing for all three of your situations after the 1st pitch legal or illegal to B3. Per ASA rule 7-2-4 you do not remove B2 from the base. That batter is simply skipped without penalty. B3 is the correct batter.

Think about it: Why would we penalize the offense when the defense missed the previous two BOOs?

Interesting take. I figured this one would be interesting.

What if there was never an initial appeal. What if, after two pitches, coach comes to you wanting to put B2 at the plate - after all, B1 was the previous batter and B2 is not currently on base. Or what if, after two pitches, the defensive coach appeals. Or what if, after B3 gets on base, the defensive coach appeals (and B2 was not on base at the END of B3's at bat).

It doesn't matter whether she scored after the first pitch. Because B2 is on base at the time of the first pitch B3 becomes the legal batter and the Batter order continues on from there. You don't let the OC make the change

I hear what you're saying... but during the normal course of action, do you write down who is on base at the beginning of each at bat? Lacking a college-level scorekeeper, do you think you could always puzzle that out from whatever the home team's mom or the JV coach's son happened to write down on the scoresheet? By the time this appeal comes, whoever it was that was on base at the beginning of the at bat is in the dugout.

It comes down to dealing with the BOO appeal at the time it is appealed.

If it's two pitches later and B2 is no longer on base, she goes into the batter's box and assumes the count. Rule on the appeal, fix it, move on.

Who gives a rat's ass? There is nothing to appeal, B3 is the batter and then B4 and then B5...... :)

I have to disagree due to the rule I stated earlier. So the DC comes to you after the first pitch and tells you b3 is BOO. You tell them no because a pitch is thrown and because b2 is a bases she is skipped without penalty. Next pitch is wild and she scores. Are you then going to put her up to bat, assuming the count. This doesn't make sense.

In this sitch you have to enforce 7-2-4 on the pitch that made B3 legal and that is the first pitch.

My post was in reference to the time of the BOO appeal.

If the initial appeal is not made until after two pitches and B2 has scored and is no longer on base, then she would be put into the box as the proper batter.

It comes down to: Where is B2 at the time of the appeal? On base or in the dugout?

I think you're wrong on this and it's not that others are having trouble following what you're saying. The batting order is not changed by a denied BOO appeal it's changed by the first pitch legal or illegal. When the appeal happens after a pitch it is denied. The first pitch legalizes the former at bat and results immediately in a change to the batting order.

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.

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?

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.

I'm not sure what "this scenario" is. If you mean mine, I'm putting B3 at the plate because she is the proper batter (7-2-c-4 in a fairly old version of the book). They appeal that B5 is incorrect. I confirm that B5 is the incorrect batter and since it was discovered while B5 was at bat I send B5 back to the dugout and bring out B3.
Think of it this way, the question is not: who should be batting? Rather it is who should have been batting. Let's say B5 instead of being caught while at bat is caught after hitting a triple which scores b2. Are you saying that since B2 has scored at the time of the appeal that B2 is out for letting B5 bat in her spot instead of B3. And that B3 is now the correct batter?

(Interestingly, the NFHS rule reads:
When several players bat out of order before discovery so that a player's
time at bat occurs while she is a runner. Such player remains on base, but
she is NOT out as a batter.
So in my scenario, since only one batter batted out of order such that b2's turn at bat came while she was on base, I'll have to call her out :D;):D
)

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

Because the rules say a pitch to the next batter, not the next correct batter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

I don't know what else to say but this.

No where in 7-2-D (2014) does it say at the time of the appeal. It says when BOO is discovered.

In the original scenario of this post we have B2 on 3rd, B1 on 1st. We have B3 at bat and s/he has received a pitch.

The BO was reestablished once B3 received a pitch with B2 on base so there is no BOO to discover . I think this is what is not being understood

As far as figuring this out on the field. That's what we get paid to do. :rolleyes:

So what?

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. :D

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

It does matter, it just doesn't matter when MD and Dakota think it does. If B2 gets on base and then B1 gets a hit and then B3 takes a pitch then whether B2 was on base at the time of the pitch definitely matters. (If she is B3 is the correct batter because B2 is skipped for being on base if not B3 is now batting out of order.)

The difficulty here that we're arguing about is that they believe that it matters whether B2 is on base at the time of the appeal and some of us believe that it only matters if she's on base at the time of the first pitch.

I guess the :D was missed...

http://de.avatarstock.com/img/Charli...-sigh_6014.png

It does NOT matter. B3 is the legal batter as B2 was NOT available at the time a batter is called to the box. There are no guest, substitute, ghost, temporary, fill-in, whatever the **** you want to call it, batter. A batter was due up and B3 was the next available batter in the order. B3 is the legal batter and will complete that turn at bat unless replaced by a legal substitute. The ODB is B4 with B5 in the hole.