protes on DP/DEFO

[amib]

a protest was made by the other tam on this, any ideas!!!

I was the DEFO who was pitching (I was in 10th position on line up card)
G was the DP for me
5th inning G goes in to pitch, finishes the inning (i am on the bench)
bottom 5th i go in and bat for G
top 6th G back in and is pitching
during this inning i go back in and pitch
G goes and sits on the bench
game over

protest was that I came back in i.e. i re entred as a batter for the DP and then again went in to pitch after he came back in the game.

[Steve M]

Sounds like a valid protest to me. As the Flex (used to be called a DEFO), you may never play offense only. So,
Top of 5th, FLEX has left the game. Bottom of 5th, FLEX uses the re-entry & is back in the game. Top of 6th, FLEX has left the game again - and is done for this game. Later in top of 6th, FLEX re-enters again. Plate umpire should not have allowed this - I am assuming here that lineup cards were given to PU (Having been burnt by this once in a drunken SP game, I bring my own, just in case the teams say they don't have any). Anyway, since PU allowed your team to re-enter the (same) FLEX a second time, PU allowed an ineligible player into the game. Protest should be upheld.

[amib]

one of the protest commmittee people said when the defo went in to bat, that is not considered a re entry and thus the defo still has his one re entry left and the dp when he went back in after the defo bat for him then that was his one re entry.

dp/defo rule and the way it is written haass to be changed.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by amib
one of the protest commmittee people said when the defo went in to bat, that is not considered a re entry and thus the defo still has his one re entry left and the dp when he went back in after the defo bat for him then that was his one re entry.

dp/defo rule and the way it is written haass to be changed.

Let me see how this works.

You ask a question. Get an answer from one of the umpires who is very well acquainted with the DP rule and then you want to argue the point. Is that the way it works?

Trust me, I would love to see the DP rule dumped all together. However, since that isn't going to happen, the rule is just fine.

If anything needs to happen is that the players and coaches start READING the rules and, if necessary, attend a few clinics so they can understand it. Just because you and your coach are not capable of understanding a rule doesn't make it wrong.

Your problem occured, and Steve will correct me if I'm wrong, when you left the game when the DP entered to pitch. If you stay on the field in another defensive position, you haven't left the game. However, since you did leave the game that means you were playing offense only and that is not allowed.

[F.O.D. UIC]

I am the UIC at Basehor Field of Dreams in Kansas, where we run 20 afa tourneys per year.
I am very familiar with the Defo/DP rule.

When they allowed you to bat for the DP in the 5th, this was an illegal substitution, since you were no longer the Defo. And, when you WERE the Defo, you were considered in the game, and are charged with a substitution when you are removed from the defensive field (which you did in the 5th inning, when G went in to pitch and you went to the bench). Therefore, you should have first been re-inserted into the 10th, non-batting position before being allowed to bat for the DP. Defo's are allowed free substitution for the DP's batting position, but when you went to the bench, the actual number of players that your team was playing with dropped to 9.

Very confusing, I know. It takes quite awhile for many to figure out, and many coaches get into trouble using it.

[TexBlue]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Let me see how this works.

You ask a question. Get an answer from one of the umpires who is very well acquainted with the DP rule and then you want to argue the point. Is that the way it works?

Trust me, I would love to see the DP rule dumped all together. However, since that isn't going to happen, the rule is just fine.

If anything needs to happen is that the players and coaches start READING the rules and, if necessary, attend a few clinics so they can understand it. Just because you and your coach are not capable of understanding a rule doesn't make it wrong.

Uh, have a bad tournament this weekend, Mike?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by TexBlue


Uh, have a bad tournament this weekend, Mike?

Actually, no, I have a fine tournament. Now the teams are a different story as a couple of them had a real hard time with the umpire's getting the calls right

[Steve M]

Amib,
If that is what your protest committee member told you, then the protest committee member is wrong.

The rule is not a difficult one to understand - just take every "change" one at a time. Most folks get into trouble with this when they try to do things too fast and do not know the specific limitations of the rule. It is not a complex rule - it's actually very simple. It does not need to be re-written, instead, you & others need to put the time & effort into learning what the rule says & means.

Rather than get into all of that, here's a site you can visit where some of what I've put together & some of what Tom has put together are available to you.

http://www.eteamz.com/sites/GCBUmpire/

addition - Nothing like looking at what you've posted without spell-checking and seeing that there are a couple of fat-fingered words in there.

[Edited by Steve M on Jun 21st, 2004 at 04:42 AM]

[CecilOne]

Hey guys, lighten up. Here I am thinking about how neat it is to have a non-umpire who can clearly explain the steps and then lets us know what the protest committee screwed up and you are jumping on coaches knowing rules and typos.

Yes, the coach did something that is not allowed, but the umpire allowed it and so did the protest committee. Of course protest committees ar a little suspect anyway. How often do you see a player reject playing time because they know the rule better than the coach?

Yes, I know that Steve M knows this rule inside out; but I also know that this specific part about reentry is vague enough to be presented wrong at one of our clinics this year and discussed at length on this forum.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by F.O.D. UIC
I am the UIC at Basehor Field of Dreams in Kansas, where we run 20 afa tourneys per year.
I am very familiar with the Defo/DP rule.

AFA is hanging tough (this year at least) with the DEFO name. Long live the AFA!

Originally posted by F.O.D. UIC
When they allowed you to bat for the DP in the 5th, this was an illegal substitution, since you were no longer the Defo. And, when you WERE the Defo, you were considered in the game, and are charged with a substitution when you are removed from the defensive field (which you did in the 5th inning, when G went in to pitch and you went to the bench). Therefore, you should have first been re-inserted into the 10th, non-batting position before being allowed to bat for the DP. Defo's are allowed free substitution for the DP's batting position, but when you went to the bench, the actual number of players that your team was playing with dropped to 9.

Part of the problem is that when trying to simplify the explanations, there are "sound-bite" style comments taken out of context and used as gospel. For example, "Defo's are allowed free substitution for the DP's batting position." I'll get back to that, but first...

While it is technically true that the reentry of the DEFO (FLEX) to bat in the 5th was illegal, an astute umpire would have handled the lineup card correctly during the discussion with the coach to make sure he knew the DEFO was reentering and was then batting for the DP, and that the DP had now left the game (so the line up during the conversation goes from 9 to 10 and back to 9). The end effect is the same, and is legal - DEFO reenters and bats for DP.

Then, in the 6th, when the DP returns to pitch, there should again be a conversation with the coach (since all line up changes involving DP/DEFO are to be given to the umpire), wherein the umpire informs the coach that his DP has reentered for his final reentry and the DEFO has left the game and is done. Once again, during the conversation, the lineup goes for 9 to 10 and back to 9.

Finally, when the team attempts to reenter the DEFO the second time, the umpire should have simply said, "you can't do that."

The true statement that "Defo's are allowed free substitution for the DP's batting position" can lead to vast misunderstanding. Some believe that the DEFO and DP may go back and forth in the batting position as many times as they want. The DEFO can, but the DP can't. Each time the DEFO bats for the DP, the DP has officially left the game. The DP can reenter, but only one time.

Also, using the word "substitution" in this context leads to confusion. It is not a substitution in the sense that the DEFO is not "entering" the game - the DEFO is already IN the game playing defense. It is, however, an exit from the game for the DP. Same thing if the DP plays defense for the DEFO. It is not an entry for the DP, but it is an exit for the DEFO.

[CecilOne]

Some of my favorite people on this forum are the ones who save me the time of looking up old topics.

[amib]

so that makes me one of your favorite people???:-)

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne
Some of my favorite people on this forum are the ones who save me the time of looking up old topics.

Especially since the "Search" function has been disabled.

[F.O.D. UIC]

Originally posted by Dakota

AFA is hanging tough (this year at least) with the DEFO name. Long live the AFA!

The true statement that "Defo's are allowed free substitution for the DP's batting position" can lead to vast misunderstanding. Some believe that the DEFO and DP may go back and forth in the batting position as many times as they want. The DEFO can, but the DP can't. Each time the DEFO bats for the DP, the DP has officially left the game. The DP can reenter, but only one time.

Also, using the word "substitution" in this context leads to confusion. It is not a substitution in the sense that the DEFO is not "entering" the game - the DEFO is already IN the game playing defense. It is, however, an exit from the game for the DP. Same thing if the DP plays defense for the DEFO. It is not an entry for the DP, but it is an exit for the DEFO.

Since we were discussing the Defo's legality or illegality, I felt as though a deeper discussion of the stipulations for the DP in this situation was unwarranted and unnecessary. You are, however, correct that each time the DP goes to the bench (out of the batting line-up), it counts as a substitution for them.