[DownTownTonyBrown]

He (B) entered the "batting order" when he ran for the DH.

Then, later, after B had been substituted for by the re-entering DH (no longer a DH - just a re-entering player, but his second time in the batting order), he (B) again entered the batting order substituting for A a second time.

Two players entered the 4th position in the batting order two separate times, EACH.

The 4th position in the batting order contained the following players A, B, A, and then B (again). (Although the situation layout sounds like B never batted.)

That situation does not settle well with me. I realize that both A and B were involved in the first inning of the game (DH and the Defensive player) and that this involvement 'somewhat' makes them both starters.... giving them re-entry rights but I feel this is rather shady because they were not both starters in the batting order. The last re-entry by B, I feel is wrong.(Does it make a difference that B never batted?)

We have all probably said "I don't care who plays where in the field. IT IS THE BATTING ORDER THAT IS SACRED." Perhaps it is this ingrained understanding of the batting order that causes me to be unsettled. That's why I asked Tim for evidence that this situation should really be allowed.