Baker became the proper batter when they pitched to Abel.

 

So if Baker is the proper batter who should have batted next?

 

Abel's hit counts as the pitch legalized Baker's AB. Baker is still out, and the next batter up should be Charles.

Abel's hit counts as the pitch legalized Baker's AB. Baker is still out, and the next batter up should be Charles.

 

Baker is still out.

First pitch to Abel made Baker's AB proper.

If Baker was the last proper AB who should have been the next batter? Did that batter bat?

Baker is still out.

First pitch to Abel made Baker's AB proper.

If Baker was the last proper AB who should have been the next batter? Did that batter bat?

 

The next "proper" batter should have been Charles, not Abel as Abel would have been ruled out had they appealed.

The next "proper" batter should have been Charles,

 

Correct. The person who was SUPPOSED to bat but DID NOT bat is declared out. You take Abel off the base. You declare Charles out. Next batter is Daniels.

Correct. The person who was SUPPOSED to bat but DID NOT bat is declared out. You take Abel off the base. You declare Charles out. Next batter is Daniels.

 

Because Abel's bat got skipped because of Baker hitting then a pitch being thrown to the next batter. But that batter was out of order too, so the order rule gets can get enforced again.. I missed Abel being the improper batter in my ruling. Looks like if I was umping that game could be under protest.

Because Abel's bat got skipped because of Baker hitting then a pitch being thrown to the next batter. But that batter was out of order too, so the order rule gets can get enforced again.. I missed Abel being the improper batter in my ruling. Looks like if I was umping that game could be under protest.

 

Not at all. I once had to explain BOO to both head coaches and half way through the explanation I realized I could be making it up and they would just go "OK."

Not at all. I once had to explain BOO to both head coaches and half way through the explanation I realized I could be making it up and they would just go "OK."

 

It's one of the tougher rules to make a ruling on and explain. Fortunately, it doesn't come up all that often (unless some jackwagon coach is doing it on purpose as was mentioned before). I've only seen it happen a handful of times in all my years.

We still don't know who's on first.

If the above is the scenario, would the answer be: Baker's at bat was legalized by Abel taking a pitch. Abel's at bat is illegal (he's the 1 hitter, not 2) so therefore Abel is out and Charlie is at bat?

 

Incorrect. Able was batting where Charlie should have been since Baker wad legalized. Therefore Abel is nullified and Charlie called out since he was SUPPOSED to be up. Daniels is now up

I have witnessed a youth coach that knows this rule inside and out to his advantage and intentionally bat out of order. He has the rule bookmarked on his phone for immediate access when the umpire screws it up.

 

Name should be given on principle alone