How can I prove this?

[UmpJM]

Let me sum this up...

The rules and case plays clearly state that the coach's desire to substitute the "player being batted for" for the DH is perfectly legal.

This would, in fact, terminate the role of the DH for that team. But, not the player who was fulfilling that role. As a starter, he has left the game once, and has one re-entry remaining.

The player being batted for is also a starter and has not yet left the game.

Everyone but SAUmp agrees with this.

If that doesn't prove it, I don't know what does.

JM

[SAump]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Let me sum this up...

The rules and case plays clearly state that the coach's desire to substitute the "player being batted for" for the DH is perfectly legal.

No argument here.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

This would, in fact, terminate the role of the DH for that team. But, not the player who was fulfilling that role. As a starter, he has left the game once, and has one re-entry remaining.

This is where the problem lies. The old DH may return to the ballgame and occupy the same place in the line-up as the new DH. But the role of the old DH role has been terminated in the OP.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

The player being batted for is also a starter and has not yet left the game.

This guy became the player {already in the game defensively} now in the offensive line-up in place of the terminated DH. If the DH is to return to that spot, wait the DH is terminated. That is now impossible. If the player who was DH returns to his spot in the lineup, the replacement DH must leave the game. Otherwise, FED rules now allow the terminated DH role to become reprised. Huh?

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Everyone but SAUmp agrees with this.
If that doesn't prove it, I don't know what does.
JM

I'm just asking someone to eliminate some of the the pronouns and state exactly how the termination of the DH role was later reprised by exactly the same two starting players?

[Matt]

There is no more DH after the first switch. When the original DH comes back in, it's not as a DH. There is no requirement that a player returns in the same role, just in the same spot in the order. Defensive positions are irrelevant to that spot in the order--F1 could be removed, and another fielder taking his place as F1, yet the substitute will always bat in the old F1's spot in the order, as he was the player removed, even though he is not playing the same defensive position.