DH Plays Defense - Fed Rules

[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.

[UmpJM]

I do not think the rules defintively address the question raised in the OP. And I certainly have not been able to find a case play or interpretation that is conclusive either.

I found Dash's suggested ruling entirely consistent with the "letter of the law", and, to me, consistent with the spirit and intent of the rule, as well.

Initially, I thought DG was just playing "devil's advocate". (And maybe he is - I don't know.) But, as I read his arguments, his "opposite" suggested ruling is equally "technically" correct. It doesn't quite strike me as consistent with the "spirit" of the rule, but maybe it is and I just don't understand the intent and spirit of the rule.

More likely, they didn't think of this "twist" when they wrote the rule, so they didn't address it.

That makes it a "point not covered" - your lucky day, you can't be wrong!

In the OP, after thinking about it, I decided it would come down to this. If #8 has been playing well - sticking pitches, blocking stuff, letting me see,... - he's staying and #22 is done.

If, on the other hand, #8 has been pulling pitches and dropping strikes, 'matadoring' pitches in the dirt, and moving around after he sets, then he's done and #22 is staying.

JM

P.S. In regard to the "noticing" question in the OP, as described I very much doubt I would have noticed this before the coach brought it to my attention.

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

I do not think the rules defintively address the question raised in the OP. And I certainly have not been able to find a case play or interpretation that is conclusive either.

I found Dash's suggested ruling entirely consistent with the "letter of the law", and, to me, consistent with the spirit and intent of the rule, as well.

Initially, I thought DG was just playing "devil's advocate". (And maybe he is - I don't know.) But, as I read his arguments, his "opposite" suggested ruling is equally "technically" correct. It doesn't quite strike me as consistent with the "spirit" of the rule, but maybe it is and I just don't understand the intent and spirit of the rule.

More likely, they didn't think of this "twist" when they wrote the rule, so they didn't address it.

That makes it a "point not covered" - your lucky day, you can't be wrong!

In the OP, after thinking about it, I decided it would come down to this. If #8 has been playing well - sticking pitches, blocking stuff, letting me see,... - he's staying and #22 is done.

If, on the other hand, #8 has been pulling pitches and dropping strikes, 'matadoring' pitches in the dirt, and moving around after he sets, then he's done and #22 is staying.

JM

Tongue in cheek perhaps, maybe you jest with us. Surely interp would not depend on how well #8 is playing. And I would hate to get ride of him if he is playing well for an unknown, but ces't la vie...

And I agree, illegal substitute vs. illegal player is a fine point, possibly not covered. But if you have been subsituted for and are still playing I don't know what else to call it..

I darn sure not going to penalize a DH for entering on defense.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DG

Read the original post.

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

Originally Posted by DG

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.

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

Originally Posted by DG

#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.

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

[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.