Batting the entire roster

[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.

[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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

With this statement:

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

I wasn't intended as a blanket statement. I was referring to the definition of "shorthanded."

[CecilOne]

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).

How is that different than going shorthanded at the ninth batter in a regular lineup?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

How is that different than going shorthanded at the ninth batter in a regular lineup?

I thought Dakota was saying that some of the other line-up rules shouldn't matter, i.e., like the shorthanded rule. If you had the rule in place, it wouldn't matter one whit. But if the rules were a little looser, coaches might try to take advantage, even under the premise of letting everyone play. Because wins are more important to some folks.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I thought Dakota was saying that some of the other line-up rules shouldn't matter, i.e., like the shorthanded rule...

Not that they shouldn't matter, but that they should be adjusted in light of the intent of the rule.