DH Plays Defense - Fed Rules

[Blue37]

For the home team:
#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 field for him."

Two questions:
How many of you would have caught this?
What happens when the coach tells you this?

[dash_riprock]

1. Absent other evidence, I probably wouldn't have caught it.

2. a) #22 is restricted to the bench for the rest of the game.
b) the position of DH is terminated
c) you need a sub. to bat in the 8 hole
d) #8 now bats in the 9 hole

[bossman72]

Under normal circumstances, had the coach done a proper substitution, there would be nothing wrong.

However, he mad an illegal substitution and he became part of the game (unannounced). So, we have no choice but to enforce the illegal sub rule.

22 is restricted. 25 has been subbed out once (and may re-enter).
8 is now batting for himself and DH is terminated in the 9th slot.
Coach may put in a sub for 25 or have him re-enter.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.