Fri Apr 16, 2004, 09:35am
|
|
In Memoriam
|
|
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: ASA - I meant NFHS
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Mike,
I noted ASA, but I kicked it. If you say FLEX is DQ'd, I cannot argue because my ASA book, where ever it is, has 2002 written on the cover.
My answer should have been noted for NFHS, which is the subject of the thread.
It is based on the fact that the new FLEX was not an illegal substitute, but merely a player batting out of order.
Batting out of order once does not warrant a disqualification.
In Fed, an illegal player is disqualified by: - Being ejected
- Having no re-entry
- By being missing from the roster
The new FLEX was not illegal, but the new FLEX did bat out of order.
When the unannounced new FLEX stepped into the box, the new FLEX was then a legal substitute. Now we both agree that if the FLEX bats at all, the FLEX must bat for the DP in Position #6.
If ASA considers batting out of order to be an ejectable offense (it surely isn't for the no re-entry or for being missing from the roster), I would be very surprised.
Sorry for the confusion.
mick
|
To start, it isn't an ejection, it is a disqualification. And it is for being an illegal batter, not for BOO.
I don't understand how you can rule a BOO without citing an unreported substitute. If it isn't an unreported sub, than it must be an illegal player. BOO is when a batter in the line-up hits in a spot in the order other than their own. The FLEX is NOT in the batting order unless they have reported as a sub for the DP. I don't believe you can have it both was and say this was simpy a BOO.
But, then again, I'm not big on NFHS rules as it is.
|
Thanks, Mike,
I dunno either.
I was trying to use reason, but then I am left-handed and think differently.
You prolly know more about Fed rules than I.
But I think, we both know that a few more words in the book can generally help. 
mick
|