Quote:
Originally posted by Gre144
I think I see your point on this but I'm not sure. Are you saying that even though the illegal batter hits a single he could theoretically be batting out of order because he substituted for a player that would have been batting out of order? In other words, in order for an illegal substitute to also be batting out of order, he must be batting for someone who would have been batting out of order if there would not have been an illegal substitution in the first place.
My point was that an illegal substitute could never be batting in the proper order because he can't be legally in the game. My thinking was the following: If he has no legal right to be in the game but he enters anyways, what proper order in the line up can he legally bat?
In short, I am not disputing your answer. I am just pointing out that if we assume that an illegal player can also bat of order he must be the legal illegal substitute for the person who would be batting out of order if there was no substitution in the first place.
[Edited by Gre144 on Apr 7th, 2001 at 09:41 AM]
|
Play: in the second inning S1 pinch hits for P1. P1 reenters on defense. In the fourth inning (a) S1 pinch hits for P1 again, or (b) pinch hits for P2. Ruling: In both cases, S1 is an illegal sub. In (a) it's not also BOO; in (b) it is. Since the penalties for illegal sub supercede those for BOO and might be different (depending on the play, time of discovery, etc.), it's important to know which to apply in case (b).