BOO?

[chasbo]

Did a JV game yesterday and the home coach says he's substituting for the flex and I say OK. After home team bats he says to me that the sub for the flex actually batted by mistake. Since visitors didn't notice ( how did they score the at bat?) I let it stand and obviously told him to correct his mistake. Since the flex is in the 10th position, and the sub batted the correct batter should have been B1-lead off batter. Had the visitors caught this in time the lead off batter would have been out and B2 would have been due up correct?

[WestMichBlue]

Only a legal batter can bat out of order. Flex is not a legal batter.

I have illegal substitute; if discovered while still at bat then batter is out, restricted to bench, B1 loses her turn at bat, and B2 is brought to the plate.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by chasbo
Did a JV game yesterday and the home coach says he's substituting for the flex and I say OK. After home team bats he says to me that the sub for the flex actually batted by mistake. Since visitors didn't notice ( how did they score the at bat?) I let it stand and obviously told him to correct his mistake. Since the flex is in the 10th position, and the sub batted the correct batter should have been B1-lead off batter. Had the visitors caught this in time the lead off batter would have been out and B2 would have been due up correct?

That depends. What position was due to bat? What position in the line-up was the DP occupying?

[WestMichBlue]

If the next batter was the leadoff hitter, then I think that Chasbo is indicating that the sub batted after the 9th batter. Coach probably had the lineup posted in the dugout; the sub saw herself on the sheet after the 9th batter, and she simply went up to bat.

The DP does not enter into the issue. Coach never said he was removing the DP, only removing the Flex. We can not assume anything more than what the coach told us.

WMB

[Dakota]

True, WMB, but if the DP was batting #1, you would have an unannounced sub rather than an illegal sub.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
If the next batter was the leadoff hitter, then I think that Chasbo is indicating that the sub batted after the 9th batter. Coach probably had the lineup posted in the dugout; the sub saw herself on the sheet after the 9th batter, and she simply went up to bat.

The DP does not enter into the issue. Coach never said he was removing the DP, only removing the Flex. We can not assume anything more than what the coach told us.

WMB

Sure she does. The sub came in for the Flex who is permitted to bat for the DP.

As Tom said, this MAY be just an unreported sub. No assumption here, just need more information before offering an opinion/ruling/discussion on the question raised.

[chasbo]

WMB has the correct assumption of the batting order. The sub for the flex saw her name and batted as the 10th batter. The DP was batting 6th I believe. So, after #9 batted we should have had #1 but a #10 slipped in there. What's the ruling- boo or illegal sub? WMB I think correctly states that only a legal batter can bat, not the flex.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Not sure about NFHS, but ASA, it is an illegal player violation. The player is DQ'd and all play stands.



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Apr 15th, 2004 at 10:16 PM]

[mick]

Originally posted by chasbo
Did a JV game yesterday and the home coach says he's substituting for the flex and I say OK. After home team bats he says to me that the sub for the flex actually batted by mistake. Since visitors didn't notice ( how did they score the at bat?) I let it stand and obviously told him to correct his mistake. Since the flex is in the 10th position, and the sub batted the correct batter should have been B1-lead off batter. Had the visitors caught this in time the lead off batter would have been out and B2 would have been due up correct?

chasbro,
If the FLEX bats, then FLEX (must)bats in #6 (Unannounced Substitute for DP) and B7 properly follows.
After a pitch was thrown to FLEX, FLEX was legal.

B1 comes to bat and defense notices "out of order".
B1 is declared out and B7 is the proper batter.
mick

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mick
Originally posted by chasbo
Did a JV game yesterday and the home coach says he's substituting for the flex and I say OK. After home team bats he says to me that the sub for the flex actually batted by mistake. Since visitors didn't notice ( how did they score the at bat?) I let it stand and obviously told him to correct his mistake. Since the flex is in the 10th position, and the sub batted the correct batter should have been B1-lead off batter. Had the visitors caught this in time the lead off batter would have been out and B2 would have been due up correct?

Now that I answered the scenario, maybe I should chime in on the question asked.

chasbro,
If the FLEX bats, then FLEX (must)bats in #6 (Unannounced Substitute for DP) and B7 properly follows.
After a pitch was thrown to FLEX, FLEX was legal.

I don't believe this is right. The Flex is never "legal" unless batting in the #6 hole. In this case, the Flex would be disqualified at any point.

If caught while at bat, B1 would assume the count. If discovered after finishing their turn at bat, B1 would be declared out, the Flex is ruled out, disqualified and any advance by other runners is negated.

If caught after a pitch to the next batter, all play stands, the player is DQ'd, if on base, shall be replaced by a legal substitute or reentry and B7 would assume the count.




[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Apr 15th, 2004 at 10:27 PM]

[mick]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Now that I answered the scenario, maybe I should chime in on the question asked.

I don't believe this is right. The Flex is never "legal" unless batting in the #6 hole. In this case, the Flex would be disqualified at any point.

If caught while at bat, B1 would assume the count. If discovered after finishing their turn at bat, B1 would be declared out, the Flex is ruled out, disqualified and any advance by other runners is negated.

If caught after a pitch to the next batter, all play stands, the player is DQ'd, if on base, shall be replaced by a legal substitute or reentry and B7 would assume the count.

Mike,
I noted ASA, but I kicked it. If you say FLEX is DQ'd, I cannot argue because my ASA book, where ever it is, has 2002 written on the cover.

My answer should have been noted for NFHS, which is the subject of the thread.

It is based on the fact that the new FLEX was not an illegal substitute, but merely a player batting out of order.

Batting out of order once does not warrant a disqualification.
In Fed, an illegal player is disqualified by:

• Being ejected
• Having no re-entry
• By being missing from the roster

The new FLEX was not illegal, but the new FLEX did bat out of order.
When the unannounced new FLEX stepped into the box, the new FLEX was then a legal substitute. Now we both agree that if the FLEX bats at all, the FLEX must bat for the DP in Position #6.
If ASA considers batting out of order to be an ejectable offense (it surely isn't for the no re-entry or for being missing from the roster), I would be very surprised.
Sorry for the confusion.
mick

[WestMichBlue]

NFHS 2.57.2: An Illegal Substitute is (c) the FLEX who enters the game as a batter in a different position in the batting order than the DP.

3.3.6.6: Placing the FLEX into one of the first nine positions for someone other than the original DP is considered an illegal substitution. The illegal substitute shall be removed from the game and restricted to the bench.

3.4.2 If illegal offensive players is discovered while at bat, then: Restriction, called out, proper batter loses her turn at bat, and next batter is up.

In the original scenario - if caught at bat, sub is out and restricted, B1 loses turn, B2 is up to bat.

If she is discovered between innings (as Chasbo noted) then all play stands, but sub is still going to be restricted.

2003 ASA rules state the same with respect to the DEFO batting in the first nine position other than the DP. However, if discovered while at bat, illegal played is DQ'd, but not out, and regular batter comes up with same count.

WMB

[mick]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
NFHS 2.57.2: An Illegal Substitute is (c) the FLEX who enters the game as a batter in a different position in the batting order than the DP.

3.3.6.6: Placing the FLEX into one of the first nine positions for someone other than the original DP is considered an illegal substitution. The illegal substitute shall be removed from the game and restricted to the bench.

3.4.2 If illegal offensive players is discovered while at bat, then: Restriction, called out, proper batter loses her turn at bat, and next batter is up.

In the original scenario - if caught at bat, sub is out and restricted, B1 loses turn, B2 is up to bat.

If she is discovered between innings (as Chasbo noted) then

all play stands, but sub is still going to be restricted.

2003 ASA rules state the same with respect to the DEFO batting in the first nine position other than the DP. However, if discovered while at bat, illegal played is DQ'd, but not out, and regular batter comes up with same count.

WMB

WMB,
Those are fine, but inapplicable rules (the ones I could find), but it could still be rationalized that FLEX went in unannounced at #6 and batted out of turn.
Nowhere in the sitch was there shown an attempt that new FLEX tried to bat for anyone, but "possibly" DP.

Now, if B2 was in the on deck position and B1 was hidng in the dugout, then you may have something of an illegal sub sitch instead of a BOO sitch.

And nowhere in the sitch was there any discovery of BOO.
That was just a woulda, coulda, shoulda. But it didn't happen.

I do not see how a DQ can be assessed. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the spirit and intent of NFHS, in determining what to do with the excited new FLEX who batted out of turn, is to disqualify the player.

mick

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mick


Mike,
I noted ASA, but I kicked it. If you say FLEX is DQ'd, I cannot argue because my ASA book, where ever it is, has 2002 written on the cover.

My answer should have been noted for NFHS, which is the subject of the thread.

It is based on the fact that the new FLEX was not an illegal substitute, but merely a player batting out of order.

Batting out of order once does not warrant a disqualification.
In Fed, an illegal player is disqualified by:

• Being ejected
• Having no re-entry
• By being missing from the roster

The new FLEX was not illegal, but the new FLEX did bat out of order.
When the unannounced new FLEX stepped into the box, the new FLEX was then a legal substitute. Now we both agree that if the FLEX bats at all, the FLEX must bat for the DP in Position #6.
If ASA considers batting out of order to be an ejectable offense (it surely isn't for the no re-entry or for being missing from the roster), I would be very surprised.
Sorry for the confusion.
mick

To start, it isn't an ejection, it is a disqualification. And it is for being an illegal batter, not for BOO.

I don't understand how you can rule a BOO without citing an unreported substitute. If it isn't an unreported sub, than it must be an illegal player. BOO is when a batter in the line-up hits in a spot in the order other than their own. The FLEX is NOT in the batting order unless they have reported as a sub for the DP. I don't believe you can have it both was and say this was simpy a BOO.

But, then again, I'm not big on NFHS rules as it is.

[mick]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

To start, it isn't an ejection, it is a disqualification. And it is for being an illegal batter, not for BOO.

I don't understand how you can rule a BOO without citing an unreported substitute. If it isn't an unreported sub, than it must be an illegal player. BOO is when a batter in the line-up hits in a spot in the order other than their own. The FLEX is NOT in the batting order unless they have reported as a sub for the DP. I don't believe you can have it both was and say this was simpy a BOO.

But, then again, I'm not big on NFHS rules as it is.

Thanks, Mike,
I dunno either.
I was trying to use reason, but then I am left-handed and think differently.
You prolly know more about Fed rules than I.
But I think, we both know that a few more words in the book can generally help.
mick