DH Plays Defense - Fed Rules

[DG]

Originally Posted by Matt

Given the coach's own words, it's #22 for #25. Absent any mention of other players, that's what it is.



How do you arrive at this conclusion? Since when are only fielding changes affected by a substitution?



Cite? Or is it that the DH is forbidden to enter while the fielder for which he is batting is still fielding?

This was an unnanounced change, but if it had been.

Coach, #22 can't replace #25, he can only replace #8 on defense.

I don't know, somewhere in the mid-1880's. You can't have a defensive player and his substitute playing defense at the same time. DH complicates since that did not come along until the American League invented this, but the concept is the same

My books say DH enters on defense, fielder DH was batting for leaves. Read 3-1-4b and tell me how you can rule that the DH who entered the game on defense is restricted and the defensive player he entered for gets to stay.

The DH is allowed by rule to assume a defensive position. QED.

[UmpJM]

Don,

Equally true, by rule the DH may not legally enter on defense unless the player he is batting for leaves the game. QED.

I really believe it's a "point not covered" - because either argument is equally supported by the rules.

I was only partially "tongue-in-cheek" with my suggested ruling. You gotta' do something, and the rules don't really say.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Don,

Equally true, by rule the DH may not legally enter on defense unless the player he is batting for leaves the game. QED.

I really believe it's a "point not covered" - because either argument is equally supported by the rules.

I was only partially "tongue-in-cheek" with my suggested ruling. You gotta' do something, and the rules don't really say.

JM

There is no "unless" in my book. I don't see this as ambiguous. DH enters on defense, player he was DH for leaves. Covered by rules.

To stay makes that player illegal, and that is the possible point not covered. Who is the illegal player is not, in my view. When discovered on defense he has to be restricted and replaced with a legal player.

I would like to keep the good catcher too, but it would not affect ruling.

Again, #22, the DH for #8, can legally assume a defensive position (unnannounced even), so someone please tell me how he can be restricted to the dugout for entering the game on defense and #8, who he was DH for can remain in the game?

Completely illogical in my view.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Thom Coste

Rule 2-36-3c says #22 (the DH) is an illegal substitute because he entered the game on defense while the player he was batting for stayed in the game on defense. #8 did nothing wrong.

And you make a good point here. I think we have contradictory rules as will be observed by reading further. It is quite possible that #22 or #8 could be restricted based on umpire's understanding of the rules.

Very interesting situation here.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DG

And you make a good point here. I think we have contradictory rules as will be observed by reading further. It is quite possible that #22 or #8 could be restricted based on umpire's understanding of the rules.

Very interesting situation here.

There's no controversey. The player who "ENTERS the game on defense" (emphasis added; rule cited above) is the illegal sub. That's the former DH in the situation; the catcher didn't ENTER the game on defense -- he was already in the game on defense.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by DG

#8 could go to LF even if #22 stays as DH for him. #22 can only play defense if #8 leaves the game.

#8 did do something wrong (or his coach did not recognize it). He stayed in the game when he should have left. DH goes in on defense, he goes out.

From the OP


#25 is batting 8th and playing left field.
#22 is batting 9th and hitting for the catcher #8.

Home coach comes to us as the teams are changing in the middle of the 5th and says, "I messed up. #25 got sick and I sent #22 to left

#8 did NOTHING wrong.

Let's put it another way.

FORGET about the mix-up in the original OP.

As the HT is taking the field in the top of 6, skip comes to you and says

"Blue I am replacing #25 with Number 22"

Now since you have the line-up card and start to mark the change you will notice that #22 is the DH and batting for #8 and therefore will say

'Skip no can do"

Meaning #22 is ILLEGAL.

Therefore, when #22 plays defense for the left fielder #22 is the ILLEGAL sub NOT number 8.

Pete Booth

[Thom Coste]

Nothing to add - stuck in a do-loop I'm trying to clear!