How can I prove this?

[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?