DH Plays Defense - Fed Rules

[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.