Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
I would like to add my own question to this thread:
If, after the DH has been terminated, can the DH re-enter the game to play defense and to bat in his original spot on the batting order? For example: DH for pitcher. Pitcher enters and bats for DH - DH role is terminated. Can DH now re-enter and pitch, or play any other position, with the pitcher, that batted for the DH and that terminated the DH role, leaving the batting order (9 players batting and the same 9 playing defense. Original pitcher is gone and DH is now playing defense and batting)? This seems reasonable and I would allow it. Am I correct? 
FED rules specifically say the DH may re-enter.
|
FED rules allow a starter to re-enter. OBR does not. Thus, you are incorrect.
|
But it is acceptable for NFHS. Correct? DH was a starter and in FED he is allowed to re-enter - although after the DH role is terminated, he must now also play defense.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
It's in parentheses near the end of 6.10.
"(The game pitcher may only pinch hit for the Designated Hitter)"
That's it. That's all he can do. He can't pinch run for the shortstop, he can't pinch hit for the catcher - he may only pinch hit for the DH - no more, no less.
|
Yes but earlier in 6.10 the rule is says
"The designated hitter may be used defensively, continuing to bat in the same position in the batting order, but the pitcher must then bat in the place of the substituted defensive player..." This is almost exactly the original scenario as given by Jay R but requested by the coach during their offensive half inning rather than in the defensive context of which the rule is stated. The only difference is now the entering pitcher for R2 didn't have to bat - he becomes a runner for R2 without having to face the pitcher.
Perhaps this is the difference and the justification of why the substitution should not be allowed... or perhaps it is so trivial of a difference that as Bob Jenkins stated, it is a reasonable extension of the rule and should be allowed.
Precedence anyone?