DH Re-entry

JL87 · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 13, 2003, 03:17pm

The DH is used in the 4th slot of the batting order for the right fielder. The DH is slow, but has a great stick. The right fielder is fast and has a great glove, but can't hit the ball. The DH is Player A and the right fielder is Player B.

In the 1st inning, the 4th slot of the batting order comes up and Player A hits a single and gets on base. The coach puts in Player B for Player A and this terminates the DH for the rest of the game. After the half inning, Player B goes on the defense for the next two innings. In the 4 inning, the 4th slot of the batting order comes up to bat and the coach puts in Player A for Player B. Player A uses his re-entry. Player A reaches first with a single and the coach puts in Player B using his re-entry. This terminates Player A for the rest of the game.

Did Player B use two re-entries?
When Player B replaced Player A in the 1st inning, did he
use the re-entry or the substitute rule?
Since Player A and Player B are both in the same lot of
the batting order, Player B just replaces Player A
and is still legal?
What is the correct ruling?

Bfair · #2 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 13, 2003, 03:29pm

I see your situation as legal.

Player B in entering to run for player A is not "substituted" into the game---he's already in the game and has not left. He is sharing the #4 batting slot with player A. The coach has merely elected to eliminate the use of the DH by allowing his defensive to play both offense and defense. He then makes legal substitution moves thereafter.

Just my opinion,

Freix

NJumpire9 · #3 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 13, 2003, 03:39pm

I agree completely with Bfair.

Tim C · #4 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 13, 2003, 07:42pm

This play was in the Federation Spring of 2000 newsletter and the official ruling was given at that time.

It is a totally legal situation.

Tee

DownTownTonyBrown · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 18, 2003, 07:05pm

really?

I don't like it.

B is getting to re-enter twice (once to end the DH and then again to replace A who re-entered for B after B "entered" the batting order to end the DH role) but he was not in the starting "batting order." That 4th slot is really getting worked over.

Tim can you get us a copy of this ruling or direct us to it on the web?

bluezebra · #6 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 19, 2003, 01:21am

Quote:

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
really?

I don't like it.

B is getting to re-enter twice (once to end the DH and then again to replace A who re-entered for B after B "entered" the batting order to end the DH role) but he was not in the starting "batting order." That 4th slot is really getting worked over.

Tim can you get us a copy of this ruling or direct us to it on the web?

B is NOT re-entering twice. When B ran for A, all that did was eliminate the DH position. B did not enter the game, he was still in the game before pinch running.

Bob

DownTownTonyBrown · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 19, 2003, 09:56am

He (B) entered the "batting order" when he ran for the DH.

Then, later, after B had been substituted for by the re-entering DH (no longer a DH - just a re-entering player, but his second time in the batting order), he (B) again entered the batting order substituting for A a second time.

Two players entered the 4th position in the batting order two separate times, EACH.

The 4th position in the batting order contained the following players A, B, A, and then B (again). (Although the situation layout sounds like B never batted.)

That situation does not settle well with me. I realize that both A and B were involved in the first inning of the game (DH and the Defensive player) and that this involvement 'somewhat' makes them both starters.... giving them re-entry rights but I feel this is rather shady because they were not both starters in the batting order. The last re-entry by B, I feel is wrong.(Does it make a difference that B never batted?)

We have all probably said "I don't care who plays where in the field. IT IS THE BATTING ORDER THAT IS SACRED." Perhaps it is this ingrained understanding of the batting order that causes me to be unsettled. That's why I asked Tim for evidence that this situation should really be allowed.

Tim C · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 19, 2003, 10:06am

Tony:

I don't remember if Idaho has "associations" or not.

If you do have an "assignor" ask him if you can review the Spring Newsletters for the spring of 1999 and 2000.

In both these news letters there are Case Book Style plays covering this situation. The 2000 example is the play listed above.

Trust me (hahaha, WHY would you ever do that?) the play as written here is legal. Completely.

Tee

bob jenkins · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 19, 2003, 12:30pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
He (B) entered the "batting order" when he ran for the DH.

I'm not sure I agree ("the DH and player are locked into the batting order" -- so B is already there), and even if I do, so what?

In order to "reenter," you must first "leave the game".

When did B leave? If you leave once, you can re-enter.

If you leave twice, you cannot reenter.

(Obviously, those statements apply to starters only.)