Unreported/Illegal Substitute

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

FED

Assuming Davis has re-entry, he has re-entered in his spot in the lineup. Where he plays on defense doesn't matter.

Lewis is The illegal sub for Howard, assuming Bob is correct. Lewis is restricted and can be replaced by Howard or another eligible/legal sub.

.

Disagree -- lewis pinch hit for Davis and remained in the game. So when Davis re-entered and Howard came out, Davis re-entered in the wrong spot.

From (an older version of) the rules book:

2-36-3 ART. 3 . . . An illegal substitute is:
a. a player who enters or re-enters the game without eligibility to do so, or
b. a player who re-enters the game in the wrong position in the batting order, or
c. a player who enters the game on defense while the player for whom he is batting is also on defense, or
d. when the player for whom the DH is batting enters the game as a batter or runner in a different position in the batting order, or
e. a player who violates the courtesy runner rule.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Disagree -- lewis pinch hit for Davis and remained in the game. So when Davis re-entered and Howard came out, Davis re-entered in the wrong spot.

From (an older version of) the rules book:

2-36-3 ART. 3 . . . An illegal substitute is:
a. a player who enters or re-enters the game without eligibility to do so, or
b. a player who re-enters the game in the wrong position in the batting order, or
c. a player who enters the game on defense while the player for whom he is batting is also on defense, or
d. when the player for whom the DH is batting enters the game as a batter or runner in a different position in the batting order, or
e. a player who violates the courtesy runner rule.

Wouldn't "C" apply here? Seems like a perfect example for the OP.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Wouldn't "C" apply here? Seems like a perfect example for the OP.

Yes, this one also. Only one needed though.

[thumpferee]

Not to beat a dead horse, but...

IMO
Davis re-entered and still maintains his spot in the BO. He would not be illegal until he batted in Howard's spot in the BO. Lewis is the illegal sub on defense based on C above.

In the OP, Davis entered for Howard but at the end says he entered for Lewis.

The more I read it the more I get

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Not to beat a dead horse, but...

IMO
Davis re-entered and still maintains his spot in the BO. He would not be illegal until he batted in Howard's spot in the BO. Lewis is the illegal sub on defense based on C above.

In the OP, Davis entered for Howard but at the end the HCsays he entered for Lewis.

The more I read it the more I get

The HC was probably confused but at that point you have two players in the same line up spot in the game. One has been legally accepted in the previous half inning, Lewis. Since he was not replaced by anybody he is still in the game. Davis has re-entered in the wrong batting order position, Howard's. Davis is the illegal sub

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Wouldn't "C" apply here? Seems like a perfect example for the OP.

C is when the DH enters on defense and the player for whom the DH is hitting remains on defense. That's not applicable to the OP.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Disagree -- lewis pinch hit for Davis and remained in the game. So when Davis re-entered and Howard came out, Davis re-entered in the wrong spot.

From (an older version of) the rules book:

2-36-3 ART. 3 . . . An illegal substitute is:
a. a player who enters or re-enters the game without eligibility to do so, or
b. a player who re-enters the game in the wrong position in the batting order, or
c. a player who enters the game on defense while the player for whom he is batting is also on defense, or
d. when the player for whom the DH is batting enters the game as a batter or runner in a different position in the batting order, or
e. a player who violates the courtesy runner rule.

Mark, Jr., and I agree with you.

MTD, Sr.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Mark, Jr., and I agree with you.

MTD, Sr.

Who disagreed with you that engendered the OP? Which, by the way, engendered much confusion because of it's wording.