Batting the entire roster

[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!

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Which seems clear, what AFAIK most have been doing.
Is that the same clarification posted by Ted in the OP?

Then, the re-entry note in the OP makes no sense to me.

There were 2. One came in March of 2015 and seemed really messed up. The most recent one is July of 2015. That seemed to clean things up a little bit, but only for those that managed to see this interpretation. Not everyone seeks this out.

[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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by teebob21

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.

Why would one ejection cause a forfeit if the team bats everyone? It was my understanding that the rule still allows for a team to lose players up to the point where they drop to eight active players when the ninth is ejected.

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Why would one ejection cause a forfeit if the team bats everyone? It was my understanding that the rule still allows for a team to lose players up to the point where they drop to eight active players when the ninth is ejected.

That would be through any reason other than ejection. It is clearly stated in 4.1.D.2.a & Exception

[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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by teebob21

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.

IOW, if you insist on a bat the roster rule, we'll add one (but since we don't like this idea, it will be so inflexible and punitive that no one will actually use it).

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by teebob21

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.

I see it used all the time. Probably realize the players behave.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

No confusion here. The shorthanded rule is in itself an exception to the minimum number of players required in 4.1.C and in all cases, does not apply if any shortage is created due to a player being ejected.

[Dakota]

A reasonable bat the roster rule should start with the intent of the rule; for example to allow everyone to participate in the game during pool play.

IMO, if you disagree that this intent should even be accommodated, you should oppose the rule in its entirety, not handicap it with other aspects of the lineup rules that would frustrate the intent of the rule itself.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Dakota

A reasonable bat the roster rule should start with the intent of the rule; for example to allow everyone to participate in the game during pool play.

IMO, if you disagree that this intent should even be accommodated, you should oppose the rule in its entirety, not handicap it with other aspects of the lineup rules that would frustrate the intent of the rule itself.

And, for example, if it's a tie game in the 7th inning with 2 outs, the winning run on third, and the 15th batter coming up to bat who has a .056 batting average, do you allow the team at bat to claim that that batter has a headache and can't bat, so you get to put your lead-off batter up? Without penalty?

Some rules must remain to maintain the integrity of the game. Coaches (and people like me ) would use any way possible to gain some type of advantage (within the rules, of course).

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

And, for example, if it's a tie game in the 7th inning with 2 outs, the winning run on third, and the 15th batter coming up to bat who has a .056 batting average, do you allow the team at bat to claim that that batter has a headache and can't bat, so you get to put your lead-off batter up? Without penalty?

Some rules must remain to maintain the integrity of the game. Coaches (and people like me ) would use any way possible to gain some type of advantage (within the rules, of course).

Where did you get that out of what I posted?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Where did you get that out of what I posted?

With this statement:

not handicap it with other aspects of the lineup rules that would frustrate the intent of the rule itself