DH Plays Defense - Fed Rules

[Dave Reed]

What's the rule that says #22 is the player to be restricted? When he went to play the field, the DH was terminated, and either he or #8 is now illegally in the game. I don't see how we determine which one is illegal.


Here's a related situation:
"3.1.4 SITUATION A: DH Jones, who has been batting for F3 in the fourth position in the batting order, hits a triple in the fifth inning and sprains his ankle sliding into third base. His coach has S1 enter the game to be a pinch runner for DH Jones. How does that affect the playing status of DH Jones and F3? RULING:
When a pinch runner or pinch hitter replaces the DH, that player becomes the DH. F3 would not be affected by the substitution. However, if the DH were to play defense, F3 would have to leave the game."

This casebook play seems to suggest that #8 should have (or could have) left the game, and then #22 would just be an unannounced defensive change.

What rule/ruling says #22 rather than #8 is illegal? (I'm not arguing that #8 is a better choice; just that he is as good a choice.)

[Thom Coste]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

What's the rule that says #22 is the player to be restricted? When he went to play the field, the DH was terminated, and either he or #8 is now illegally in the game. I don't see how we determine which one is illegal.


Here's a related situation:
"3.1.4 SITUATION A: DH Jones, who has been batting for F3 in the fourth position in the batting order, hits a triple in the fifth inning and sprains his ankle sliding into third base. His coach has S1 enter the game to be a pinch runner for DH Jones. How does that affect the playing status of DH Jones and F3? RULING:
When a pinch runner or pinch hitter replaces the DH, that player becomes the DH. F3 would not be affected by the substitution. However, if the DH were to play defense, F3 would have to leave the game."

This casebook play seems to suggest that #8 should have (or could have) left the game, and then #22 would just be an unannounced defensive change.

What rule/ruling says #22 rather than #8 is illegal? (I'm not arguing that #8 is a better choice; just that he is as good a choice.)

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.

[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.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

What's the rule that says #22 is the player to be restricted? When he went to play the field, the DH was terminated, and either he or #8 is now illegally in the game. I don't see how we determine which one is illegal.

(Case play deleted for space consideration - Blue37)

What rule/ruling says #22 rather than #8 is illegal? (I'm not arguing that #8 is a better choice; just that he is as good a choice.)

We handled it as Dash and Bossman stated above. While there might be some (read very little) wiggle room for restricting #8, logic would lead you to #22. #8 was already playing defense and he stayed as his same position. #22 was the player who assumed #25's defensive position. There would be more support for your contention had #22 gone in to catch and #8 gone to left field.

[dash_riprock]

Nice job getting that one right on the field. Most umps will have a career without having to deal with that. I hope I'm one of them.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Blue37

We handled it as Dash and Bossman stated above. While there might be some (read very little) wiggle room for restricting #8, logic would lead you to #22. #8 was already playing defense and he stayed as his same position. #22 was the player who assumed #25's defensive position. There would be more support for your contention had #22 gone in to catch and #8 gone to left field.

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

The role of the designated hitter is terminated when the designated hitter assumes a defensive position. So DH is in and the defensive player is out. So it would appear #8 is the illegal player for playing defense when he should be on the bench because the DH assumed a defensive position.

Replace #8 on defense, #22 bats in that slot as he should and you need a new player to bat in #25's slot.

#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. He is the illegal player. He may have been unaware that he was doing wrong, but he has to leave when DH enters on defense. Coach should definitelly know this. #8 is the illegal player as #22 can enter on defense, position he is playing is irrelevant, batting order is. Legal substitute for sick #25 could have come in to play catcher when #22 went to LF.

[Matt]

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.

The role of the designated hitter is terminated when the designated hitter assumes a defensive position. So DH is in and the defensive player is out. So it would appear #8 is the illegal player for playing defense when he should be on the bench because the DH assumed a defensive position.

Replace #8 on defense, #22 bats in that slot as he should and you need a new F7 to replace #25.

#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. He is the illegal sub. He may have been unaware that he was doing wrong, but he has to leave when DH enters on defense. Coach should definitelly know this. #8 is the illegal player as #22 can enter on defense, position he is playing is irrelevant, batting order is. Legal substitute for sick #25 could have come in to play catcher when #22 went to LF.

Nope. Whichever player has the change in status is the illegal substitute. How can #8 be an illegal substitute when he's not even a substitute?

[DG]

Originally Posted by Matt

Nope. Whichever player has the change in status is the illegal substitute. How can #8 be an illegal substitute when he's not even a substitute?

Illegal player, not illegal sub. He can't stay in the game when he has been substituted for, which he has when DH who was batting for him enters on defense. DH has legally changed status from DH to defensive player and batter for himself. #8 is playing illegally. #22 can't be an illegal substitute by assuming a defensive position which he can legally do.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DG

Illegal player, not illegal sub. He can't stay in the game when he has been substituted for, which he has when DH who was batting for him enters on defense. DH has legally changed status from DH to defensive player and batter for himself. #8 is playing illegally.

No, because the DH is now occupying a different spot in the order than where he started.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Matt

No, because the DH is now occupying a different spot in the order than where he started.

Read the original post. There was no mention of batting infractions, only that #22 replaced #25 in LF. There is no batting order infraction mentioned in the post. One must conclude that only fielding changes have been made illegally. #8 has to leave. DH who was batting for him entered on defense. Defensive player must leave the game when his DH enters 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!