DH Plays Defense - Fed Rules

[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.