DH Plays Defense - Fed Rules

[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.