Batting the entire roster

[Tru_in_Blu]

In USA pool play, teams are allowed the option to bat up to and including all roster players present.

A question came up tonight about if the lineup had to list the 9 defensive players first, and then "extra hitters", if you will, or simply disperse 9 defenders through a lineup of, say 15 hitters.

Found this from the July 2015 Plays and Clarifications:

• When using a DP/FLEX: If a team uses the DP/FLEX rule the flex will still be listed at the end of the batting order. If a team decides to bat the FLEX they may do so. However, the FLEX may only bat for the DP in the DP’s batting position. Then DP would be then considered out of the game and may re-enter one time. EXAMPLE: A team is batting 12 and using the DP/FLEX. They would list their 12 batters with the DP being in one of the first nine positions and the FLEX listed in the 13th spot.

That would seem to favor the argument that the 9 defensive positions would have to be listed first. But the rule gives no hint of that.

Also, once lineups are official at the plate conference, couldn't the coach just move a bunch of players around defensively as well as to/from "bench"?

Then, also found this from March 2015 Plays & Clarifications:

• The first nine players listed on the line-up card must be the starters on defense and must have their defensive position listed with the exception of the DP/FLEX. The DP must be one of the first nine players and the FLEX must be listed last on the line-up card.

And also this:

• Defensive Substitutes: Players not listed as a starting player or DP/FLEX, first 9 spot in the batting order, may be used as a substitute on defense. The batting order will not be changed and the Re-Entry Rule would still be in effect. EXAMPLE: Batter number 11 goes in to play defense at shortstop for batter 3. Batter 11 has now entered the game and batter 3 has left the game. They still bat in the 3 and 11 positions as they originally did. Re-entry rule still in effect

Wow, very confusing.

[CecilOne]

As above:

"The first nine players listed on the line-up card must be the starters on defense and must have their defensive position listed"

[Tru_in_Blu]

This business about a player entering the game and a batter that has left the game is not logical. To me, because everyone was in the batting line up, everyone IS in the game. And the comment about re-entry rule still being in effect is very confusing.

The rules book doesn't specify any of this. Not everyone is reading Plays & Clarifications among the umpire community. Coaches certainly aren't reading this stuff.

I view batting the entire order as when slow pitch teams elect to include an EP (extra player). That player can appear anywhere in the lineup and can play defense for anyone else. See RS#18 for details on that. My contention is that that philosophy should apply to all the "EPs" in pool play JO games.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

This business about a player entering the game and a batter that has left the game is not logical. To me, because everyone was in the batting line up, everyone IS in the game. And the comment about re-entry rule still being in effect is very confusing.

The rules book doesn't specify any of this. Not everyone is reading Plays & Clarifications among the umpire community. Coaches certainly aren't reading this stuff.

I view batting the entire order as when slow pitch teams elect to include an EP (extra player). That player can appear anywhere in the lineup and can play defense for anyone else. See RS#18 for details on that. My contention is that that philosophy should apply to all the "EPs" in pool play JO games.

Except this is a special rule for JO pool play.

To appease the parents? To compete with other alphabets?

[RKBUmp]

From what I have heard through the grapevine, yes the rule was made to both appease the parents and compete with the other alphabets. It was suppose to be a free substitution rule but didnt get worded that way. After the rule was passed, they started applying all the other rules in the book that made it a nightmare.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

From what I have heard through the grapevine, yes the rule was made to both appease the parents and compete with the other alphabets. It was suppose to be a free substitution rule but didnt get worded that way. After the rule was passed, they started applying all the other rules in the book that made it a nightmare.

It was a bullshit rule change to start. This is what happens when you try to mix money with logic

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

The rules book doesn't specify any of this. Not everyone is reading Plays & Clarifications among the umpire community. Coaches certainly aren't reading this stuff.

Along with lots of other things, but the problem is lack of communication to umpires.

Hush, Irish. No rants!

[IRISHMAFIA]

And if there are no "subs" and you eject a player, is the game over?

It is possible to have multiple vacant spots for outs throughout the game. I imagine that could become somewhat interesting.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And if there are no "subs" and you eject a player, is the game over?

Yes. This was hammered home at the coaches' meeting this year. Not one of my pool play games batted the entire roster. I guess they didn't want to give up their courtesy runners or risk an EJ causing a forfeit.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It is possible to have multiple vacant spots for outs throughout the game. I imagine that could become somewhat interesting.

Yes, down to a minimum of 8 BATTERS.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And if there are no "subs" and you eject a player, is the game over?

Even though 4.8.D says so, 5.4.H might cause confusion.
I think the "required number of players" in 5.4.H would be interpreted as the number in the batting order.


Edit:
And also in "4.1.D.2.a & Exception" as IM said.