Author Topic: BOT in the Bigs ????  (Read 522 times)

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2602
  • FAN REACTION: +320/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
BOT in the Bigs ????
« on: May 11, 2018, 08:52:47 AM »
The Mets & the Reds had a happening the other evening that is more rare than a no-hitter... the Mets batted out of turn :o . With a lineup of A,B,C,D; C showed up after A and struck out. B then came to bat, doubled, and was then out on appeal for BOT. The Met's skipper later stated : "I knew we were in trouble as soon as 'C' struck out." I understand the NFHS rules on this, and had always felt MLB was the same. If so, couldn't D have came up and one pitch was thrown, he would become the legal batter (following C) and the statute of limitations would have legalized B ??????

CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY :

A. I'm missing something;
B. the Mets skipper is missing something;
C. the Bangor Daily Snews is missing something;
D. all of the above;
E. none of the above________________.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 10:14:26 AM by Ralph Damren »

Offline GA Umpire

  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-0
Re: BOT in the Bigs ????
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2018, 11:57:26 PM »
The Mets & the Reds had a happening the other evening that is more rare than a no-hitter... the Mets batted out of turn :o . With a lineup of A,B,C,D; C showed up after A and struck out. B then came to bat, doubled, and was then out on appeal for BOT. The Met's skipper later stated : "I knew we were in trouble as soon as 'C' struck out." I understand the NFHS rules on this, and had always felt MLB was the same. If so, couldn't D have came up and one pitch was thrown, he would become the legal batter (following C) and the statute of limitations would have legalized B ??????

CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY :

A. I'm missing something;
B. the Mets skipper is missing something;
C. the Bangor Daily Snews is missing something;
D. all of the above;
E. none of the above________________.
Ralph:
Below is the rule from OBR.

6.03(b)
Batting Out of Turn
(1)  A batter shall be called out, on appeal, when he fails to
bat in his proper turn, and another batter completes a time
at bat in his place.
(2)  The proper batter may take his place in the batter’s box at
any time before the improper batter becomes a runner or
is put out, and any balls and strikes shall be counted in
the proper batter’s time at bat.
(3)  When an improper batter becomes a runner or is put
out, and the defensive team appeals to the umpire before
the first pitch to the next batter of either team, or before
any play or attempted play, the umpire shall (1) declare
the proper batter out; and (2) nullify any advance or
score made because of a ball batted by the improper bat-
ter or because of the improper batter’s advance to first
base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or
otherwise.
(4)  If a runner advances, while the improper batter is at bat,
on a stolen base, balk, wild pitch or passed ball, such
advance is legal.
(5)  When an improper batter becomes a runner or is put out,
and  a  pitch  is  made  to  the  next  batter  of  either  team
before an appeal is made, the improper batter thereby
becomes the proper batter, and the results of his time at
bat become legal.
(6)  When the proper batter is called out because he has failed
to bat in turn, the next batter shall be the batter whose
name follows that of the proper batter thus called out.
(7)  When  an  improper  batter  becomes  a  proper  batter
because no appeal is made before the next pitch, 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 that of the legalized improper batter.

i am not aware of what happened in the game in question, so I cannot choose one of the possible answers you listed.


Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2254
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: BOT in the Bigs ????
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2018, 07:12:01 AM »
In that game, the Mets posted a lineup in the dugout that was different from the one given to the umpire and the Reds at the plate conference.  Supposedly there was a screwup in the computer-generated printout.

Since the principle of GIGO applies, I'm guessing there was a job opening the next day.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2602
  • FAN REACTION: +320/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: BOT in the Bigs ????
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2018, 09:37:30 AM »
In that game, the Mets posted a lineup in the dugout that was different from the one given to the umpire and the Reds at the plate conference.  Supposedly there was a screwup in the computer-generated printout.

Since the principle of GIGO applies, I'm guessing there was a job opening the next day.

That's easy, 'Bama, just blame it on the computer  :!#.

Thanks, GA Ump, for the OBR rule. It appears the same as NFHS. The Met's manager told the press that once C struck out, he would be caught with BOT (A,B,C,D....). IMHO, he had two potential moves that could prevent this :
(1) Send up D, the opponents aren't going to appeal C for BOT as he K'ed but wait for a time that would produce an out. Once a pitch is thrown to D, C becomes legal and D follows C in the lineup -6.03(b)7.

(2) Once B took a pitch he could be replaced by the proper batter -D- without any penalty -6.03(b)7.

Am I missing something ???

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-5
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: BOT in the Bigs ????
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2018, 01:39:13 PM »
Both courses of action would be correct. However, I would (personally) send up D. If the other team throws a pitch to D, appeal is off. If noticed, C just bats again +1 out on B for failing to appear when he should.

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 671
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-10
Re: BOT in the Bigs ????
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2018, 10:56:21 AM »
So it appears OBR is the same as Fed rules here. A, B, C, D is the proper order. The order they batted in was A, C, B. So C struck out and a pitch was thrown to B, making C legal. D is at bat, but B is batting out of order in D's place. He doubles and is called out on appeal, E is now up to bat.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2254
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: BOT in the Bigs ????
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2018, 06:30:17 AM »
So it appears OBR is the same as Fed rules here. A, B, C, D is the proper order. The order they batted in was A, C, B. So C struck out and a pitch was thrown to B, making C legal. D is at bat, but B is batting out of order in D's place. He doubles and is called out on appeal, E is now up to bat.

Since D was the proper batter, he will be the one called out.  B's double is nullified, and E is the next proper batter.

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 671
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-10
Re: BOT in the Bigs ????
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2018, 04:08:52 PM »
Since D was the proper batter, he will be the one called out.  B's double is nullified, and E is the next proper batter.

Isnt that what I said?

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2254
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: BOT in the Bigs ????
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2018, 06:30:11 AM »
Not the way I read it:

"B is batting out of order in D's place. He doubles and is called out on appeal"

D (the proper batter) is the one called out, not B.

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 671
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-10
Re: BOT in the Bigs ????
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2018, 08:16:32 AM »
Ok, well...B batting for D, B is on base so HE is called out for the spot. E is next up.