Runner ejected

[jjskitours]

With no legal substitutes available, I know a team can use the "last batted out" to run for an injured player. How about if a runner is ejected while safely occupying a base or a batter-runner throws his bat after a team warning.

[Jocko]

Ruleset?

[Replacematt]

With no legal substitutes available, I know a team can use the "last batted out" to run for an injured player. How about if a runner is ejected while safely occupying a base or a batter-runner throws his bat after a team warning.

Given the location of the thread, I assume you are referring to FED. If so, you are incorrect. It is the last runner not on base (so, it could be a scored runner) and the cause of the original runner's removal is irrelevant.

[cp9]

Actually, it's the last BATTER not on base.  

[Replacematt]

Actually, it's the last BATTER not on base.

In FED, all batters become runners, so the difference is moot.

[noumpere]

Not all. 

 

(for example BI; illegal bat; moving to the other batter's box when the pitcher is in a position to pitch)

[Replacematt]

Not all. 

 

(for example BI; illegal bat; moving to the other batter's box when the pitcher is in a position to pitch)

You got me.

Now I'll just await a non-sensical interpretation that a batter becomes a runner the instant interference occurs.

[noumpere]

haha.  I'm kind of surprised they haven't put that in to help with the LCD umpire philosophy they so often have.

[jjskitours]

Agreed the language in the Fed Case Book reads "most recent batter not on base". Now to my most important question and one that Matt answered. Does anyone have a rule, case or interpretation to support that an "ejected runner or batter-runner who is safely on base, but becomes ejected (for whatever reason) can have a courtesy runner as provided under 4.4.1B for an "injured" runner. Or is he simply OUT. I lean towards Matt's statement, but would like any solid support, if available.  

[maven]

Does anyone have a rule, case or interpretation to support that an "ejected runner or batter-runner who is safely on base, but becomes ejected (for whatever reason) can have a courtesy runner as provided under 4.4.1B for an "injured" runner. Or is he simply OUT. I lean towards Matt's statement, but would like any solid support, if available.  

 

 

A runner who commits an unsporting act might be ejected but not be called out. Coach would ordinarily send a substitute (NOT a courtesy runner). See 3-3-1-g PENALTY, which mentions ejection but no out, and 3.3.1 HH, which applies the provision and explicitly permits a sub.

 

The ruling in 4.4.1B refers to a "courtesy runner" rather than a substitute because the team has no eligible subs to replace the injured player. I would extend that "courtesy" to a team with no subs whose player was ejected rather than injured on the grounds that, since there is no provision to call the ejected player out, somebody has to finish running the bases for him.

[Replacematt]

Agreed the language in the Fed Case Book reads "most recent batter not on base". Now to my most important question and one that Matt answered. Does anyone have a rule, case or interpretation to support that an "ejected runner or batter-runner who is safely on base, but becomes ejected (for whatever reason) can have a courtesy runner as provided under 4.4.1B for an "injured" runner. Or is he simply OUT. I lean towards Matt's statement, but would like any solid support, if available.

I'm going off the fact that 4-4-1 does not provide limitations on the circumstances causing this situation. I think the only reason a question arises is because all the case plays specify injury.

[Replacematt]

Does anyone have a rule, case or interpretation to support that an "ejected runner or batter-runner who is safely on base, but becomes ejected (for whatever reason) can have a courtesy runner as provided under 4.4.1B for an "injured" runner. Or is he simply OUT. I lean towards Matt's statement, but would like any solid support, if available.

 

 

A runner who commits an unsporting act might be ejected but not be called out. Coach would ordinarily send a substitute (NOT a courtesy runner). See 3-3-1-g PENALTY, which mentions ejection but no out, and 3.3.1 HH, which applies the provision and explicitly permits a sub.

 

The ruling in 4.4.1B refers to a "courtesy runner" rather than a substitute because the team has no eligible subs to replace the injured player. I would extend that "courtesy" to a team with no subs whose player was ejected rather than injured on the grounds that, since there is no provision to call the ejected player out, somebody has to finish running the bases for him.

You don't need to extend the case play from "courtesy runner" to "substitute." The rule itself specifically allows for this type of substitution. Whether the circumstances are correct for it to happen is the question.

[noumpere]

Isn't the rule itself sufficient?

 

"If the offensive player must be substituted for after reaching base, ....." (4-4-1f Note)

 

It doesn't say anything about being restricted to injury etc.  If you would normally have a sub, then you get this "special" situation if there are no subs available.

[Jimurray]

The BRD calls it an "emergency substitute" and as noumpire states, 4-4-1f Note 1 should work.

[jjskitours]

Thanks. Agreed.

[maven]

Isn't the rule itself sufficient?

 

"If the offensive player must be substituted for after reaching base, ....." (4-4-1f Note)

 

It doesn't say anything about being restricted to injury etc.  If you would normally have a sub, then you get this "special" situation if there are no subs available.

 

Yes, it is sufficient. Thanks, I was working the question backwards (ordinarily we substitute ...).