Is this BOO ?

[Guest OceanBlue]

In the middle of the game, B1 (proper B) leads off and gets a hit. B9 (improper B) makes an out. B2 comes to bat and gets a hit (B1 to 2B). Before the next pitched to B3, the defense appeal BOO (claiming that B2 batted in B1's spot). Because B9 became a proper batter (with a pitch to B2), B1 should be the next proper batter, but B1 is on 2B. 

Is this BOO ? If so, why ? Who is out, where are runners placed? 
If this is not BOO, why ? 

[Mudisfun]

B1 is fine.

B9 is legitimized when B2 took a pitch. Next proper batter should be B1 since he would normally follow B9, but he is on base.

Skip B1 since he is on base, go to B2 who is also on base when appealed... B3 is proper, leave the runners where they are. They have all be legitimized.

Yes, you HAD failing to bat in order, but the defense failed to properly appeal the violation. They should have appealed BOO when B9 got out. His out would be negated, B2 would be called out (so net/net on outs) and the proper batter would then be B3. But since they did not do this, you basically end up with... one out, B3 is up BUT you end up with R1, R2 versus the proper appeal when B9 flied out... which would be R1, one out and B3 to bat since B2 would have been declared out, his hit never happened and R1 would not have been advanced.

[Guest OceanBlue]

8 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

Skip B1 since he is on base,

What rule/interp can you cite to justify skipping B1 ? 

[noumpere]

7 minutes ago, Guest OceanBlue said:

What rule/interp can you cite to justify skipping B1 ? 

This, for one (and the concept exists in all codes):

PLAY (6 )—Daniel walks and Abel comes to bat. Daniel
was an improper batter, and if an appeal is made before the
first pitch to Abel, Abel is out, Daniel is removed from base,
and Baker is the proper batter. There is no appeal, and a
pitch is made to Abel. Daniel’s walk is now legalized, and
Edward thereby becomes the proper batter. Edward can
replace Abel at any time before Abel is put out or becomes a
runner. He does not do so. Abel flies out, and Baker comes
to bat. Abel was an improper batter, and if an appeal is
made before the first pitch to Baker, Edward is out, and the
proper batter is Frank. There is no appeal, and a pitch is
made to Baker. Abel’s out is now legalized, and the proper
batter is Baker. Baker walks. Charles is the proper batter.
Charles flies out. Now Daniel is the proper batter, but he is
on second base. Who is the proper batter?
RULING: The proper batter is Edward. When the proper
batter is on base, he is passed over, and the following batter
becomes the proper batter.

[wolfe_man]

22 minutes ago, Guest OceanBlue said:

What rule/interp can you cite to justify skipping B1 ? 

B1 became legal when B9 took the first pitch.  Opposing team can no longer appeal after 1st pitch to the next batter.

B9 then batted out of order, but he made an out.  B2 was the proper batter according to the rules. Once B1 was made legal, B2 should have followed him.

B1 would then be up, but he is on base, so B2 would be the next legal batter.

Since B9 was out, there is no one to penalize in this case.

[Mudisfun]

I only have my LL book with me at the moment...

Rule 6.07 approved rulings, play 6 (bottom of page 98 if you have the LL green book)

Paraphrasing this a little...

Batting order is A/B/C/D/E/F/G etc

Play 6

Daniel walks and Abel comes to bat. Daniel was an improper batter and if an appeal is made before the first pitch to Abel, Abel is out, Daniel is removed from base and Baker is the proper batter. There is no appeal and a pitch is made to Able. Daniels walk is now legitimized, and Edward thereby becomes the proper batter. Edward can replace Abel at anytime before Abel is put out, or becomes a runner. Edward does not do so. Abel flies out and Baker comes to bat. Abel was an improper batter and if an appeal is made before the first pitch to Baker, Edward is out and proper batter is Frank. There is no appeal and a pitch is made to Baker. Abel's out is now legitimized, and the proper batter is Baker. Baker walks. Charles is the proper batter who flies out. Now Daniel is the proper batter, but Daniel is on 2nd base. Who is the proper batter?

 

The proper batter is Edward. When the proper batter is on base, that batter is passed over and the following batter becomes the proper batter.

[Mudisfun]

9 minutes ago, noumpere said:

This, for one (and the concept exists in all codes):

PLAY (6 )—Daniel walks and Abel comes to bat. Daniel
was an improper batter, and if an appeal is made before the
first pitch to Abel, Abel is out, Daniel is removed from base,
and Baker is the proper batter. There is no appeal, and a
pitch is made to Abel. Daniel’s walk is now legalized, and
Edward thereby becomes the proper batter. Edward can
replace Abel at any time before Abel is put out or becomes a
runner. He does not do so. Abel flies out, and Baker comes
to bat. Abel was an improper batter, and if an appeal is
made before the first pitch to Baker, Edward is out, and the
proper batter is Frank. There is no appeal, and a pitch is
made to Baker. Abel’s out is now legalized, and the proper
batter is Baker. Baker walks. Charles is the proper batter.
Charles flies out. Now Daniel is the proper batter, but he is
on second base. Who is the proper batter?
RULING: The proper batter is Edward. When the proper
batter is on base, he is passed over, and the following batter
becomes the proper batter.

Wish I had checked the pop up notification saying there were additional replies... would have saved me typing ALL of the same thing you did!

[beerguy55]

Put it another way.

If B2 had taken a ball/strike, instead of getting a hit, and coach came out:

The pitch legalizes B9's at bat

Proper batter would be B1 - normally B1 would replace B2 with one ball/strike

But because B1 is on base, the proper batter is...B2

 

This language is in FED  NOTE: When several players bat out of order before discovery so that a player’s time at bat occurs while he is a runner, such player remains on base, but he is NOT out as a batter.

[Guest OceanBlue]

33 minutes ago, noumpere said:

This, for one (and the concept exists in all codes):

PLAY (6 )—Daniel walks and Abel comes to bat. Daniel
was an improper batter, and if an appeal is made before the
first pitch to Abel, Abel is out, Daniel is removed from base,
and Baker is the proper batter. There is no appeal, and a
pitch is made to Abel. Daniel’s walk is now legalized, and
Edward thereby becomes the proper batter. Edward can
replace Abel at any time before Abel is put out or becomes a
runner. He does not do so. Abel flies out, and Baker comes
to bat. Abel was an improper batter, and if an appeal is
made before the first pitch to Baker, Edward is out, and the
proper batter is Frank. There is no appeal, and a pitch is
made to Baker. Abel’s out is now legalized, and the proper
batter is Baker. Baker walks. Charles is the proper batter.
Charles flies out. Now Daniel is the proper batter, but he is
on second base. Who is the proper batter?
RULING: The proper batter is Edward. When the proper
batter is on base, he is passed over, and the following batter
becomes the proper batter.

The following is from MLBUM which seems to distinguish between how the person scheduled to bat got on base (wrt to skipping his turn). And while this interp covers your example above, it does not cover the OP.

If a player who has batted out of order is legally on base because no proper appeal was made at the time the player batted out turn and it becomes his proper turn to bat, the player is to remain a base runner, and the batter who properly follows such player in the batting order becomes the proper batter.

But this is not what happened in the OP. B1, in the OP. did not bat out of turn, so this MLBUM interp does not apply. 

If this official interp does not apply, is there another interp that does ? If not, then I think that this is BOO, and even though B1 can stay on 2B (no rule saying that he doesn't), his AB (after B9) is counted as an out. And B2 comes off of 1B and returns to bat.

[noumpere]

5 minutes ago, Guest OceanBlue said:

But this is not what happened in the OP. B1, in the OP. did not bat out of turn, so this MLBUM interp does not apply. 
 

You're reading it too restrictively; it applies.

[beerguy55]

3 minutes ago, Guest OceanBlue said:

The following is from MLBUM which seems to distinguish between how the person scheduled to bat got on base (wrt to skipping his turn). And while this interp covers your example above, it does not cover the OP.

If a player who has batted out of order is legally on base because no proper appeal was made at the time the player batted out turn and it becomes his proper turn to bat, the player is to remain a base runner, and the batter who properly follows such player in the batting order becomes the proper batter.

But this is not what happened in the OP. B1, in the OP. did not bat out of turn, so this MLBUM interp does not apply. 

If this official interp does not apply, is there another interp that does ? If not, then I think that this is BOO, and even though B1 can stay on 2B (no rule saying that he doesn't), his AB (after B9) is counted as an out. And B2 comes off of 1B and returns to bat.

 

I did reference the FED language above, which to me covers it, and I see no reason why the concept wouldn't extend to all codes.

eg.  order is b1,b2,b3,b4-b9

B1 gets on base

B8 gets on base

B9 pops out

B1 should be proper batter

B2 is now proper batter without penalty  (B9's at bat legitimizes B8's, establishing the new proper order - B8,B9,B1,B2) - B1 is passed because he's on base

[Guest OceanBlue]

1 minute ago, noumpere said:

You're reading it too restrictively; it applies.

I'm reading it as written and not assuming other conditions apply where not written. Are you suggesting that the interp was mis-written ? I suppose that could happen, but that could/should be easily fixed (not like getting a rule change implemented).  

If a player who has batted out of order is legally on base because no proper appeal was made at the time the player batted out turn and it becomes his proper turn to bat, the player is to remain a base runner, and the batter who properly follows such player in the batting order becomes the proper batter.

I don't know why they included the struck out words, if they didn't intend for them to mean anything. 

[scrounge]

2 minutes ago, Guest OceanBlue said:

I'm reading it as written and not assuming other conditions apply where not written. Are you suggesting that the interp was mis-written ? I suppose that could happen, but that could/should be easily fixed (not like getting a rule change implemented).  

If a player who has batted out of order is legally on base because no proper appeal was made at the time the player batted out turn and it becomes his proper turn to bat, the player is to remain a base runner, and the batter who properly follows such player in the batting order becomes the proper batter.

I don't know why they included the struck out words, if they didn't intend for them to mean anything. 

Because if a proper - as in, timely - appeal was made, the player would be removed from the base. If the proper batter is on base, skip him without penalty. He's been legalized. Do better on the appeal next time, defense.

[maven]

18 minutes ago, Guest OceanBlue said:

I don't know why they included the struck out words, if they didn't intend for them to mean anything. 

So, to your mind, either the passage means what you think, or it means nothing? As Carl used to say: Lah me.

I agree with what others have said: the phrase refers to any batter, proper or improper, who is part of a sequence that has any number of instances of MYTAB in it, and is on base when he next becomes the proper batter due to the MYTAB infractions.

Could it have been phrased better? Sure.

Is that par for the course in a set of rules not written by lawyers, for lawyers? Absolutely.

[Guest OceanBlue]

20 minutes ago, scrounge said:

Because if a proper - as in, timely - appeal was made, the player would be removed from the base. If the proper batter is on base, skip him without penalty. He's been legalized. Do better on the appeal next time, defense.

Dunno what you mean by timely. If they appealed after B9 made the out, B2 would be out for MYTAB (instead of B9), but B1 wouldn't be effected (unless he advanced on the BOO).

I would amend my earlier ruling depending on whether B1 advanced to 2B on B2's BOO base hit, B1's AB (after B9) is counted as an out. And B2 comes off of 1B and returns to bat.

.  

[Guest OceanBlue]

18 minutes ago, maven said:

So, to your mind, either the passage means what you think, or it means nothing? As Carl used to say: Lah me.

No, to my mind, the interp means what the words say.
Y'all are extending a ruling beyond the what is written. I'm sure Carl also had a catchy zinger for that type of umpire.

[scrounge]

16 minutes ago, Guest OceanBlue said:

No, to my mind, the interp means what the words say.
Y'all are extending a ruling beyond the what is written. I'm sure Carl also had a catchy zinger for that type of umpire.

Ok. You came and asked your questions, didn't like the near-unanimous answers, proceeding to argue with everyone about it. Good luck to you.

Have you considered joining the facebook umpiring forums?

[Guest OceanBlue]

7 minutes ago, scrounge said:

Ok. You came and asked your questions, didn't like the near-unanimous answers, proceeding to argue with everyone about it. 

I don't argue, I persuade. I have read lots on this forum and I find it odd that true by-the-book posters want to extend a written interp beyond  the limited scope that a good interp specifically includes.

[CJK]

2 hours ago, Guest OceanBlue said:

When the proper batter is on base, he is passed over, and the following batter becomes the proper batter.

"Play 6" (cited above by @noumpereand commented on by you) is from the OBR -- Rule 6.03(b)(7) Comment -- and contains the specific text repeated here.

I don't see how it could be more clear.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Guest OceanBlue said:

I don't know why they included the struck out words, if they didn't intend for them to mean anything

Two possibilities:

1. The words were written for a specific scenario to answer a specific question, but not necessarily to the exclusion of all other scenarios.

2. The words were written for the only scenario that they could (or did) visualize...especially in the professional setting.   

They couldn't visualize, as FED did in 7-1-5 ('cause it probably happened), that a team could screw up the batting order so badly that a player who properly batted and got on base would end up being next in the order while still on base.

Letter of the rule vs spirit of the rule.   Sometimes you just need to play the game and understand the spirit and intent of the rules that govern it.

 

To the other side of the argument - the rule books are very clear on the situations and scenarios that cause a batter or runner to be out.  Which "the batter is out when" or the "runner is out when" scenarios would justify B1 being out in your scenario?

Put it this way...let's say after B9 batted, B2 got a ball on the first pitch.  Then a coach pointed out that B1 should be batting.

What then?   Everyone here has shown that B2 should be the proper batter...because B1 CAN'T bat.

What rule do you have that says:

B1 the runner is out, and then B1 goes to bat (with a 1-0 count)

B1 must bat, and someone else runs for him...

B1 is the runner is out, and doesn't get to bat either - now B2 is up

Something else...

[Mudisfun]

BTW... the interp I gave is straight from the LL book. 

If the proper batter is on base, after others have been legitimized and then he would come back to bat, he is skipped and the next proper batter comes to the plate.

Agree or don't agree but when the P goes in the book for the misapplication of the rules, the onus will be on you for misapplying the written rule.

[Guest OceanBlue]

56 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

To the other side of the argument - the rule books are very clear on the situations and scenarios that cause a batter or runner to be out.  Which "the batter is out when" or the "runner is out when" scenarios would justify B1 being out in your scenario?

Put it this way...let's say after B9 batted, B2 got a ball on the first pitch.  Then a coach pointed out that B1 should be batting.

What then?   Everyone here has shown that B2 should be the proper batter...because B1 CAN'T bat.

What rule do you have that says:

B1 the runner is out, and then B1 goes to bat (with a 1-0 count) No out is prescribed here

B1 must bat, and someone else runs for him...  No one is allowed to run for this runner

B1 is the runner is out, and doesn't get to bat either - now B2 is up  No, nothing about this option makes sense

Something else...

Yes, something else ... the offense has a choice:
1. they could take B1/R1 off the base themselves and put him to bat. But then the umpire might declare R1 (B1) out for abandoning his base (not an attractive option); or
2. they could keep B1/R1 on base and keep B2 at bat in a BOO scenario (the rule says the proper batter may (not must) take his place in the batter’s box at any time before the improper batter becomes a runner or is put out ) and then take what happens if his BOO AB is appealed.
a. If B2 reaches base (as in the OP), then the defense appeals BOO, one out (B1) is recorded, B1 stays on base but returns to the base he was at if he advanced because of B2's BOO AB. and R2 is taken off the base and comes back to bat.
b. B2 does not reach base and there may be no reason for the defense to appeal BOO. In which case, one pitch to B3 would legalize B2's AB and the situation rights itself.

Easy peasy
 

[Guest OceanBlue]

1 hour ago, Mudisfun said:

BTW... the interp I gave is straight from the LL book. 

Agree or don't agree but when the P goes in the book for the misapplication of the rules, the onus will be on you for misapplying the written rule.

I don't do LL. OBR often applies to LL. LL rarely applies to OBR. 

I'd have the black and white of the OBR interp to back my ruling at the protest hearing, while those protesting will (like many here) only have hand waving and theoretical opinions of how the interp should be interpreted (while ignoring what is actually written).  

[beerguy55]

6 hours ago, Guest OceanBlue said:

Yes, something else ... the offense has a choice:
1. they could take B1/R1 off the base themselves and put him to bat. But then the umpire might declare R1 (B1) out for abandoning his base (not an attractive option); or
2. they could keep B1/R1 on base and keep B2 at bat in a BOO scenario (the rule says the proper batter may (not must) take his place in the batter’s box at any time before the improper batter becomes a runner or is put out ) and then take what happens if his BOO AB is appealed.

 

Wow.  Just wow.   You do realize "may take his place" means that the offense can correct their mistake...that they are not committed to the wrong batter once he enters the box...they can correct their mistake any time before the defense appeal window.   What OBR does make clear in all the rulings and play examples is when a wrong batter is discovered during an at bat the correct batter WILL take his place.

 

4 hours ago, Guest OceanBlue said:

I don't do LL. OBR often applies to LL. LL rarely applies to OBR. 

I'd have the black and white of the OBR interp to back my ruling at the protest hearing, while those protesting will (like many here) only have hand waving and theoretical opinions of how the interp should be interpreted (while ignoring what is actually written).  

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry.

If you played the game for ten minutes you wouldn't be making what are quite possibly the stupidest statements ever uttered on this planet.

What those of us using common sense have are these exact words written in OBR  "When the proper batter is on base, he is passed over, and the following batter becomes the proper batter."   And these exact words in FED "When several players bat out of order before discovery so that a player’s time at bat occurs while he is a runner, such player remains on base, but he is NOT out as a batter"

That's pretty black and white.

Your MLBUM statement doesn't have context, and is likely situational, not exhaustive.

You would lose any protest you tried...and your two remedies above are fabrications that exist only in your mind, and are based on nothing resembling reality.   Can you honestly imagine a MLB umpire applying the remedies you suggest in a MLB game???   If you can, you need to stop the coke.

Anyway, at this point you're either being intentionally contrarian, or intentionally obtuse.  I've wasted enough of my life on you.

 

 

[Kevin_K]

4 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

If you played the game for ten minutes you wouldn't be making what are quite possibly the stupidest statements ever uttered on this planet

f you can, you need to stop the coke.

Anyway, at this point you're either being intentionally contrarian, or intentionally obtuse.  I've wasted enough of my life on you.

 

 

Settle down big guy. While you may not like, understand, or agree with the post, there is no need to make comments that are so personally derisive.

That's what happens in other places and on other boards. Not here.

[Guest OceanBlue]

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Wow.  Just wow.   You do realize "may take his place" means that the offense can correct their mistake...that they are not committed to the wrong batter once he enters the box...they can correct their mistake any time before the defense appeal window.   What OBR does make clear in all the rulings and play examples is when a wrong batter is discovered during an at bat the correct batter WILL take his place. Of course they may correct their mistake. In nearly all cases it is to the offense's benefit to correct the BOO situation. But given the language used, "may", means that they don't have to if it isn't to their benefit. 

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry.  oh, just have another beer. Your demeanor suggests that you've already imbibed. That's not good for for a developing adolescent brain though.

If you played the game for ten minutes you wouldn't be making what are quite possibly the stupidest statements ever uttered on this planet. I've probably played this game more minutes than you've been on this planet (based on the maturity of your responses, my estimate is you're somewhere in the junior HS age range). And as long as you're on this planet, I think the rest of us are safe from saying the stupidest things earthlings can say. 

What those of us using common sense have are these exact words written in OBR  "When the proper batter is on base, he is passed over, and the following batter becomes the proper batter."   And these exact words in FED "When several players bat out of order before discovery so that a player’s time at bat occurs while he is a runner, such player remains on base, but he is NOT out as a batter" note what I underlined above. Only one player BOO in the OP. So this statement, if I was talking Fed (which I wasn't) WOULD NOT apply.

That's pretty black and white. yet you fail to comprehend   

Your MLBUM statement doesn't have context, and is likely situational, not exhaustive. It is specifically a BOO reference. How much more context do you require. And it is plain black and white

You would lose any protest you tried...and your two remedies above are fabrications that exist only in your mind, and are based on nothing resembling reality.   Can you honestly imagine a MLB umpire applying the remedies you suggest in a MLB game???   If you can, you need to stop the coke. I prefer pepsi

Anyway, at this point you're either being intentionally contrarian, or intentionally obtuse. or my reading/comprehension skills go beyond your comic book reading skills. But take heart, your high school years are coming and you'll have plenty of opportunities to grow as a person.  

I've wasted enough of my life on you. Perhaps this website would be a better use of your time:  RIF