BOO "Appeals" and Offense Initiated Plays

[grayhawk]

We had this discussion last night at our HS association meeting.  The instructor said that if there is a BOO situation, and the offense then initiates a play (such as, prior to any pitch, the improper batter who just reached base steals, with F1 then stepping off and making a play on him), that this does not cancel the defense's right to appeal the BOO.  The justification being that this prevents the offense from intentionally forcing the defense to play on them knowing that it will cancel the right of appeal.

 

Now, it clearly states in 8-2 Penalty that offense-initiated plays does not cancel the right for the defense to appeal baserunning infractions - specifically for missed bases, or bases left too soon on a caught fly ball.  I see nowhere in the rules that this applies to BOO "appeals."

 

Am I missing something?  I see nothing in the BOO rules about offense vs defense initiated plays.  I also don't see anything that makes a BOO "appeal" equivalent to a baserunning appeal.

[JaxRolo]

If I understand this correctly isn't an appeal and appeal? So I would think this rule applies to BOO. So I say it does not cancel.

[ricka56]

My BRD says that time to initiate an appeal for BOO is the same as a standard appeal in Fed games. This should include the offensive initiated play exception, IMO.

[maven]

If you disallow the BOO appeal simply because the offense initiated a play, you give a significant and unfair advantage to the offense. Although I am generally leery about applying this bit of the rules to that situation over there, in this case it seems to me that the rationale applies just as much to a BOO appeal as to a baserunning appeal.

 

I would not say that this makes the infractions "equivalent," though they are both infractions by the offense that the defense has the right to appeal within a certain window.

 

Now if you were asking whether this could be an advantageous 4th out...

[grayhawk]

My BRD says that time to initiate an appeal for BOO is the same as a standard appeal in Fed games. This should include the offensive initiated play exception, IMO.

 

What year and page is that?  I couldn't find anything in my 2011 BRD.

[noumpere]

If I understand this correctly isn't an appeal and appeal? So I would think this rule applies to BOO. So I say it does not cancel.

It's not the same.

 

There is a rule on batting that covers BOO appeals.  there is a rule on baserunning that covers missed base appeals.

 

While lots of the language is the same some of it (like this one example) is not.

 

Different (but similer) rules; different (even if similer) time frames..

[grayhawk]

 

If I understand this correctly isn't an appeal and appeal? So I would think this rule applies to BOO. So I say it does not cancel.

It's not the same.

 

There is a rule on batting that covers BOO appeals.  there is a rule on baserunning that covers missed base appeals.

 

While lots of the language is the same some of it (like this one example) is not.

 

Different (but similer) rules; different (even if similer) time frames..

 

 

All I know is that if an offense-initiated play doesn't cancel the right to appeal, it is strictly by interpretation only because it is most certainly not in the rules or case books.  8-2 is very specific to missed bases and failing to properly tag up.  Nothing at all about BOO.

[ricka56]

 

My BRD says that time to initiate an appeal for BOO is the same as a standard appeal in Fed games. This should include the offensive initiated play exception, IMO.

 

What year and page is that?  I couldn't find anything in my 2011 BRD.

I'm afraid my BRD is older than your's, 2008

 

16  Appeals: Time to initiate after batting out of order infraction

Fed: The standard appeal time frame also applies to the appeal of an improper batter.

 

Let me know if this has been updated.

[grayhawk]

 

 

My BRD says that time to initiate an appeal for BOO is the same as a standard appeal in Fed games. This should include the offensive initiated play exception, IMO.

 

What year and page is that?  I couldn't find anything in my 2011 BRD.

I'm afraid my BRD is older than your's, 2008

 

16  Appeals: Time to initiate after batting out of order infraction

Fed: The standard appeal time frame also applies to the appeal of an improper batter.

 

Let me know if this has been updated.

 

 

Thanks - it is still in the 2011 BRD.  However, Carl cites 7-1-2-2 which says nothing at all about offense-initiated appeals.

[ALStripes17]

Why would the 'offense initiating' a play matter on a BOO? When the defense makes the appeal, all runners must go back to their base at the time of the last pitch. If that's the case, the defense does not have to worry about anything else except the appeal.

[ricka56]

 

 

 

My BRD says that time to initiate an appeal for BOO is the same as a standard appeal in Fed games. This should include the offensive initiated play exception, IMO.

 

What year and page is that?  I couldn't find anything in my 2011 BRD.

I'm afraid my BRD is older than your's, 2008

 

16  Appeals: Time to initiate after batting out of order infraction

Fed: The standard appeal time frame also applies to the appeal of an improper batter.

 

Let me know if this has been updated.

 

Thanks - it is still in the 2011 BRD.  However, Carl cites 7-1-2-2 which says nothing at all about offense-initiated appeals.

 

This BRD wording and maven's sensible justification for keeping the appeal alive on an offensive initiated play is good enough for me.

[ALStripes17]

Is BRD a credible source when it comes to interp? I know of the books, but do not know their credibility. There is nothing specifically said in FED RB or CB regarding right to appeal BOO after an offense-initiated play. In the BOO section of the RB (not on me right now), it specifically states that the improper batter becomes the proper batter after any pitch (legal or illegal), play, or attempted play. Let the offense do what they want after that, if the appeal is upheld, then everyone and everything goes back to the way it was at TOP. It's not like a missed base appeal. Runners don't return to previous bases on a missed base appeal that is upheld.

[ricka56]

Why would the 'offense initiating' a play matter on a BOO? When the defense makes the appeal, all runners must go back to their base at the time of the last pitch. If that's the case, the defense does not have to worry about anything else except the appeal.

If it didn't matter, then the offense does a BOO, reaches 1B, then takes a large lead and practically forces the defense to throw to 1B to drive him back. If it didn't matter, then this play would remove the defense's opportunity to appeal the BOO. I don't think that would be the intent of the BOO time restrictions.

[ALStripes17]

Why would the 'offense initiating' a play matter on a BOO? When the defense makes the appeal, all runners must go back to their base at the time of the last pitch. If that's the case, the defense does not have to worry about anything else except the appeal.

If it didn't matter, then the offense does a BOO, reaches 1B, then takes a large lead and practically forces the defense to throw to 1B to drive him back. If it didn't matter, then this play would remove the defense's opportunity to appeal the BOO. I don't think that would be the intent of the BOO time restrictions.

Why drive him back if he is improper and going to be out anyway? Just appeal and we go back in time with another out

[ricka56]

 

 

Why would the 'offense initiating' a play matter on a BOO? When the defense makes the appeal, all runners must go back to their base at the time of the last pitch. If that's the case, the defense does not have to worry about anything else except the appeal.

If it didn't matter, then the offense does a BOO, reaches 1B, then takes a large lead and practically forces the defense to throw to 1B to drive him back. If it didn't matter, then this play would remove the defense's opportunity to appeal the BOO. I don't think that would be the intent of the BOO time restrictions.

Why drive him back if he is improper and going to be out anyway? Just appeal and we go back in time with another out

Why the rush...the improper batter could round 1B and take off for 2B. Why should the defense be forced to declare BOO the instant the improper batter reaches base.

 

Or perhaps R2 or R3 trys to initiate a play to protect their improper batter.

[ALStripes17]

They don't have to! As a coach, I would let the kid run around the bases 30 times if he wanted to and tell my team to just stand there and wait the young energetic puppy out. When he peters out and/or the umpire grants me 'Time,' he is still going to be out for BOO, along with any and all runners returning. BOO is a factual rule appeal. It is not the same as a missed base or runner leaving early, which are judgment appeals.

[maven]

They don't have to! As a coach, I would let the kid run around the bases 30 times if he wanted to and tell my team to just stand there and wait the young energetic puppy out. When he peters out and/or the umpire grants me 'Time,' he is still going to be out for BOO, along with any and all runners returning. BOO is a factual rule appeal. It is not the same as a missed base or runner leaving early, which are judgment appeals.

 

Careful: your puppy — the improper batter — is not the one who is out for BOO.

 

And the issue is not how to judge BOO, but when the window closes to get the out.

 

As you know, BOO appeals are subject to the "Goldilocks" principle: they can be too early (swap out the improper batter), too late (improper batter has been made proper), or juuuuuust right! (and the proper batter is out).

 

Steve's question concerns whether a play initiated by the offense makes a subsequent BOO appeal too late. Being able to check the lineup doesn't answer this question.

[ricka56]

Well look at it practically. You, as coach, knows there is a BOO. Do you think the players on the field know there is a BOO or whether you, the coach, wants to make the appeal? Are you going to trust your kids to not try to make an easy out when they see it. Are you going to have the time to explain not to make a play that they've been trained to make since t-ball. Would you, as coach, want to lose your opportunity to appeal because your players are making a baseball play ?

[ALStripes17]

Maven: technicality on who is out. By "he" I hoped it was inferred that it meant the proper spot in the order.

I understand the question posed, and my response answers that question. BOO appeals are separate from baserunning appeals, and I have stated why.

BOO appeals: factual

Baserunning appeals: judgment

Each come with different penalties.

Im led to believe the "offense initiated play" caveat on baserunning appeals is there to protect the defense seeing as runners can continue to advance and remain whether the appeal is upheld or not.

In regards to whether or not kids listen to their coach is not our problem. If we get into that kind of interpretation, then we might as well rewrite the entire book based on what the kids are taught.

[grayhawk]

 

 

 

 

My BRD says that time to initiate an appeal for BOO is the same as a standard appeal in Fed games. This should include the offensive initiated play exception, IMO.

 

What year and page is that?  I couldn't find anything in my 2011 BRD.

I'm afraid my BRD is older than your's, 2008

 

16  Appeals: Time to initiate after batting out of order infraction

Fed: The standard appeal time frame also applies to the appeal of an improper batter.

 

Let me know if this has been updated.

 

Thanks - it is still in the 2011 BRD.  However, Carl cites 7-1-2-2 which says nothing at all about offense-initiated appeals.

 

This BRD wording and maven's sensible justification for keeping the appeal alive on an offensive initiated play is good enough for me.

 

 

It's a sensible justification, but extremely far-fetched, IMO.  If the offense discovered the BOO while the improper batter is at-bat, they are taking a HUGE gamble to not make it known.  Otherwise, they risk either the defense appealing and getting an easy out, or the offense initiating a play (in an attempt to cancel the defense's right to appeal), which is also likely to get an out.

 

If they only discover it after the improper batter reaches base, then it's highly unlikely that they would be able to communicate with any runner fast enough to initiate a play that would result in anything other than an out.  Again, it seems pretty far fetched.

 

By the way, if the improper batter reaches base (let's say with a walk), and he just continued to second, I would consider that as part of continuous action which wouldn't cancel the right to appeal anyway.  Same thing if he just took a huge lead after rounding first.

[ricka56]

 

 

 

 

 

My BRD says that time to initiate an appeal for BOO is the same as a standard appeal in Fed games. This should include the offensive initiated play exception, IMO.

 

What year and page is that?  I couldn't find anything in my 2011 BRD.

I'm afraid my BRD is older than your's, 2008

 

16  Appeals: Time to initiate after batting out of order infraction

Fed: The standard appeal time frame also applies to the appeal of an improper batter.

 

Let me know if this has been updated.

 

Thanks - it is still in the 2011 BRD.  However, Carl cites 7-1-2-2 which says nothing at all about offense-initiated appeals.

 

This BRD wording and maven's sensible justification for keeping the appeal alive on an offensive initiated play is good enough for me.

 

 

It's a sensible justification, but extremely far-fetched, IMO.  If the offense discovered the BOO while the improper batter is at-bat, they are taking a HUGE gamble to not make it known.  Otherwise, they risk either the defense appealing and getting an easy out, or the offense initiating a play (in an attempt to cancel the defense's right to appeal), which is also likely to get an out.

 

If they only discover it after the improper batter reaches base, then it's highly unlikely that they would be able to communicate with any runner fast enough to initiate a play that would result in anything other than an out.  Again, it seems pretty far fetched.

 

By the way, if the improper batter reaches base (let's say with a walk), and he just continued to second, I would consider that as part of continuous action which wouldn't cancel the right to appeal anyway.  Same thing if he just took a huge lead after rounding first.

 

 

I know it is far fetched...everything that we are discussing here is far-fetched. I understand you and Al's point. The offensive intitated exception for BOO is not written in the RB. I do not know if the absence of this exception was intended or an over-sight (the BRD seems to suggest that it is an over-sight).

 

I know that I wouldn't want to sell the lose of the opportunity to appeal BOO to the DHC in the far-fetched case of an offensive initiated play...especially if I had BRD cover. 

[noumpere]

 

 

By the way, if the improper batter reaches base (let's say with a walk), and he just continued to second, I would consider that as part of continuous action which wouldn't cancel the right to appeal anyway.  Same thing if he just took a huge lead after rounding first.

 

That's exactly right and to take it farther, if play is relaxed enough that the coach has a reasonable chance to request time so he can say 'hey, blue (sic), he batted out of order" then he needs to take that opportunity.  If he doesn't, then it's on him.  If he doesn't have the chance, then its "continual action."

[grayhawk]

I emailed Ken Allan about this and here are his responses.  Read from the bottom up for the email thread.

 

Hi Steve:

I think what you want is wording in 7-1-2 Pen 2 to cover who initiates the
play. How about this: ".......pitch or play or attempted play INITIATED BY
THE DEFENSE, or prior to an....."

Let me know.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 9:41 PM
To: Ken Allan
Subject: Re: BOO & Offense-Initiated Plays

Thank you Ken. Perhaps the rules committee could review 8-2 Penalty and
include BOO appeals in the language?

As it stands right now, there is no basis in the rule as written to allow a
BOO appeal after any play or attempted play (no matter who initiates it).
It's strictly an interpretation.

Thanks again!

> On Feb 25, 2014, at 9:00 PM, "Ken Allan" <kensport101@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve:
>
> I sent my response to your question to the former chairman of the NFHS
> rules committee. He agreed exactly with my response which is:
>
> The instructor is correct. BOO It is covered in 7-1-2 Pen 2. Base
> running appeals are covered, as you mentioned, in 8-2-5 Pen. A team
> making a BOO appeal enjoys the same right as a team making a base running
> appeal in that the appeal is not lost if the offensive team initiates a
> play. The intent of 8-2-5 Pen is to apply to both base running appeals and
> BOO appeals.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Ken

[bsutherland1018]

For BOO the defense has until the next pitch, play or attempted play to notice the BOO.  A play is a legitimate attempt to retire a batter or runner, so as long as they don't make a throw to stop the steal or try to pick off the runner going back then they can still call BOO.  If they do make a throw then they're out of luck.

 

If all else fails, remember that common sense and fair play should dictate your decision.

[grayhawk]

For BOO the defense has until the next pitch, play or attempted play to notice the BOO.  A play is a legitimate attempt to retire a batter or runner, so as long as they don't make a throw to stop the steal or try to pick off the runner going back then they can still call BOO.  If they do make a throw then they're out of luck.

 

If all else fails, remember that common sense and fair play should dictate your decision.

 

That's not what they (the guys with their pictures in the rule book) are saying.  They are saying that if the offense initiated the play, then the defense can play on them (make a throw in an attempt to retire the runner) and still have an opportunity to appeal the BOO.

 

I'm fine with that interpretation, but would prefer that the rule book language reflected it, which is currently doesn't.  Based on Ken's last email, perhaps they will make a recommendation to have the language added, though I won't be holding my breath.