|
I had the following situation come up in a game recently. OBR in effect.
Batter order is:
B1
B2
B3
B4 (DH)
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9 (2B)
The pitcher is being DH'd for in this game.
It is the break between the top and bottom of the 5th inning.
Visiting team (doing their warm-ups in the field) come to the PU and announce the following changes:
note- I am not sure if this was the order than they were dictated in from the visiting manager to the PU.
(1) P is moving to LF; LF is moving to P.
(2) DH is moving into a defensive position at 2B. 2B is leaving the game.
-------
PU says:
DH role is terminated. Original P (who wasn't hitting), goes into the game in the #9 spot in the batting order, in the spot where the 2B was hitting. From now on, the pitcher is hitting for himself.
-------
Home manager says:
Once the original P moves into the game defensively, the DH is terminated. Original P should now be batting in the #4 spot in the batting order. Everything else as is. The DH may no longer play in the game. Therefore, the 2B must stay in the game, or be replaced by a player on the bench that has not been in yet.
-------
My thoughts:
Both of the arguments make sense. I looked up OBR 6.10 that deals with the DH. Say just (1) takes place. The pitcher and the LF switch places. The DH is terminated, and now we have the original P batting 4th. DH is done.
Say just (2) takes place. The DH enters the game to play 2B, and the new pitcher will bat in the 9th spot vacated by the 2B.
BUT: the "new" pitcher is not a bench player, he is already in the line-up as the LF. What is the correct ruling on this? Does it matter what way they are said to the PU in? It seems to me that both of them make sense, but if one is done, then the other can't be right.
Thoughts?
|