DP/Flex...and ejection

[Andy]

Situation: Team A (visitor) submits a lineup with ten players using DP/Flex and no subs. Top of the first, two outs, R1 on second. R1 attempts to advance home on a hit ball to the outfield, throw comes in, catcher has ball, R1 makes no attempt to slide or avoid, but basically plows through catcher. I call R1 out and eject her. R1 is not the DP or Flex. Since the team was still able to put nine players in the field, but could only bat eight, we allowed the game to continue with an out each time R1's spot came around in the order. Several of us looked in the rule book, but could not come up with a definitive ruling (ASA). Let's hear what you all say - rule references if possible. Thanks

[WestMichBlue]

If you ejected the player (for a flagrant violation) the team can not continue to play shorthanded. 4.2.2A: ". . . team may continue a game with one less player than is curently in the lineup whenever a player leaves the game for any reason other than ejection."

Also read the definition of Ejection: if no substitute available for ejected player game is forfeited.

Offense - or batting position seems to be the key criteria for playing shorthanded. Note following rule comments: "If starting shorthanded the empty position must be last in batting order." "When empty position comes up, out is recorded." "FP teams can never bat less than 8."

So if offense is the shorted handed criteria, you were playing with eight players (even though you fielded nine). Not legal when player is ejected.

WMB

Note: this is ASA only. Had this been a H.S. game you could have continued to play short.

[Edited by WestMichBlue on Jun 5th, 2004 at 10:40 PM]

[Dakota]

A similar question came up before in the context of a team that started, as yours did, with 10 and listed FLEX - DP on the lineup.

After an injury, they were reduced to 9 on defense and 8 on offense. A second injury reduced them to 8 on defense and 7 on offense. (I may not have the exact scenario right, but the end result was 7 batting, 8 in the field.)

The question was, could they continue - after all, they still did have 8 active players.

Answer: No.

The shorthanded rule is stated in terms of the offensive lineup, and always talks in the singular - "THE vacant position... "

Same concept here. The 9th player on defense does not "count" in the shorthanded rule when the team is on offense.

4-1D-2a covers this.

4-8C says the shorthanded rule cannot be used with an ejected player.

In your situation, they game should have been forfeited.

[WinterWillie]

Originally posted by Dakota
A similar question came up before in the context of a team that started, as yours did, with 10 and listed FLEX - DP on the lineup.

After an injury, they were reduced to 9 on defense and 8 on offense. A second injury reduced them to 8 on defense and 7 on offense. (I may not have the exact scenario right, but the end result was 7 batting, 8 in the field.)

The question was, could they continue - after all, they still did have 8 active players.

Answer: No.

The shorthanded rule is stated in terms of the offensive lineup, and always talks in the singular - "THE vacant position... "

Same concept here. The 9th player on defense does not "count" in the shorthanded rule when the team is on offense.

4-1D-2a covers this.

4-8C says the shorthanded rule cannot be used with an ejected player.

In your situation, they game should have been forfeited.

What if the Flex is substituted for the DP (or vice versa)? That would eliminate one of those positions giving you a substitute to re-enter.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by WinterWillie
What if the Flex is substituted for the DP (or vice versa)? That would eliminate one of those positions giving you a substitute to re-enter.

Are you suggesting that, for example, the DP play defense for FLEX, removing the FLEX/DP positions from the game?

While technically true it does this (lineup goes to 9), the player who was playing FLEX may not bat in any position other than the DP's spot in the batting order. So, this doesn't give them a sub for R1, who was ejected.

[Dakota]

Suppose the player ejected was while the team was playing defense (say F6 threw an elbow to a passing runner). Suppose it was the bottom half of the final inning. Suppose visitors were leading.

Would you allow DP to play defense for F6 to complete the game and preserve the win, or would you forfeit the game since DP is not a legal substitute for F6?

[WestMichBlue]

Difficult question - you have rules conflicts here. (2003 ASA book)

1. 4.1.C.2 says that 10 players are required to start a game when you have a DP/FLEX.

2. 4.1.D.2.A says that you cannot continue with one less (ie. nine) due to ejection.

3. 4.3.D allows you to return to nine players when using the DP/FLEX.

If I were forced to decided this, I would give preference to the DP/FLEX rules and allow the legal shift to 9 players (which would negate 4.1.D.2.A) and I would allow the game to end.

If the home can tie the game up, then the visitors would forfeit when they came to bat. (Now 4.1.D.2.A is valid because they are playing with one less (8) then current line up (9) and that one less is due to ejection.

WMB

[Ed Maeder]

In 4-1-D-2-a it states that "Under no circumstances shall a team be permitted to bat less than nine (slow pitch) or eight (fast pitch). In your case yes they could put the flex in to play defense but they must still have a legal sub to put in the ejected players spot in the batting line-up. If the home team evens up the score the visitors will have to bat and will have an empty spot due to ejection. No Legal sub no more play. I got in after WMB and would disagree with that ruling because if I eject someone I'm first of all not going to give an advantage to the offending team and second I'm not able to continue the game until I have a legal sub for the ejected player. That also would mean that any time you ejected someone you wouldn't need a sub until they were at bat. There is no conflict in the rules here. If no substitutes are available the game is a forfeit. Definitions

[Edited by Ed Maeder on Jun 6th, 2004 at 06:30 PM]