FLEX bats #10 - NFHS v ASA
 

DP/FLEX on the lineup card. Top of an inning. No outs. DP is not batter #1 in the lineup (doesn't matter what batter she is - just not #1). Offense mistakely thinks the FLEX bats in the 10-spot. B1 is due up, but FLEX enters the batter's box and hits a single. B1 follows and hits a single, advancing R1 (FLEX) to 2B. B2 enters the batter's box. Defense requests TIME and protests that FLEX is illegal.

In NFHS, FLEX is out an restricted (illegal sub for B1), B1 is out and restricted (illegal sub for B2), and B2 is out and restricted (illegal sub for B3). B4 is due up their next half inning (assuming they still have enough players).

In ASA, FLEX is DQ'ed and can be replaced on base with an eligible sub. B1 is declared out and runner (FLEX's sub) returns. One out unless there are no subs available for FLEX. B2 is merely replaced at bat with B3.

So, for NFHS 3 outs, 3 players restricted to the bench.

For ASA, possibly only 1 out, 2 players DQ'ed. At most 2 outs if there are not elibible subs for FLEX.

Interesting.

How about this?

NFHS - Flex is out and restricted (illegal sub for B1)

B1 batted out order (should have been B2.)

On appeal, B2 is out, B1's at bat is negated.

B3 is now proper batter with 2 outs.

The problem is that once B1 was illegally sub'ed for, she was out of the game. Hence, she is not IN the batting order, so she cannot bat OUT of order. She had to re-enter to get back into the batting order. She did not re-enter in her legal position in the batting order (runner for FLEX), but instead re-entered for B2. It was not BOO, it was an illegal re-entry.

I know WMB ststes consistently that NFHS is more benevolent and caring by catering to the youth player, but obviously not the case here.

The ASA version limits the damage for what is really one mistake that snowballs; and limits the result of the defense sitting by and letting it snowball. Whatever the defense fails to appeal becomes partially legalized. The NFHS version actually rewards the defense for either not knowing, or sitting in wait for the maximum damage.

After the first illegal sub/player, this is really nothing more than an unreported re-entry who batted in the wrong spot in the batting order; everything after that is the same as any batting out of order daisychain, where failing to appeal legalizes what previously happened. It shouldn't be three outs, three restrictions, and likely a forfeit.

Or, if you are in WA at the 2004 Class B High School State Tournament:

*Out of order batter discovered eight batters later
*Team has scored seven runs in the inning
*Defense has not recorded an out

So what do the two brain surgeons, er, umpires, do? They get three outs and no runs score. No restrictions, no nothing. They just declare three outs and no runs score.

So what does the offending coach do? Nothing. Nothing at all.

And that is absurd. B2 and B3 commited no violation. They batted after player listed as the legal batter prior to them in the batting order. Or should you expect them to say, "Oops, you're right, I'll send up the next batter instead so you can appeal the player batting out of order."

[/quote]

I've edited my OP - I'd stated the ASA penalty incorrectly. See the blue text for where I made changes.

Ok I'm confused (and that's not hard anymore)...

With the ASA interp:
I see where the unreported sub (FLEX in for B1) is DQ'd and replaced. (4.6.C.4)

But I don't see why you're declaring B1 out.

Who should be the next proper batter after the FLEX illegally bats? B2? Then don't you have BOO per 7.2.D.2 because B1 just batted for B2? B2 is out, remove B1 from 1B, return the FLEX's sub back to 1B and bring B3 up to bat...

Am I right? Or am I missing something? Or was the situation that just the issue with the FLEX was appealed and not the BOO?

What you're missing is that since FLEX illegally sub'ed for B1, B1 has left the game. B1 then re-entered (unreported, and illegally) for B2. Hence, both FLEX and B1 are illegal subs - FLEX for B1, and B1 for B2. Since the protest was made before a pitch was thrown to the next batter, B1 is declared out and DQ'ed and the runners return (ASA 4-6-C-3).

I understand where you're going with this in respect to the literal application of all rules, but I think you're making a rather complicated case and draconian response to what is a rather simple case of in-attention to detail.

It is not complicated at all. It is not unusual to come across coaches or players who treat the FLEX as a 10th batter. And from there, everything is following the rules.

A sub is a sub (legal or illegal), and somebody enters the game and somebody leaves the game. You can't have an illegal sub unless somebody entered and somebody left.

You can't have a player who is not IN the batting order bat OUT of order - she has to enter the game, first.

I actually agree in the NFHS case with the "draconian" label for the ruling. Just show me where it is wrong.

Not for ASA, though. The penalty is very reasonable for the circumstances.

The point in bringing it up (here and on the NFHS board) was to hopefully get an official interpretation that does NOT result in 3 outs and 3 players restricted to the bench (NFHS).

The penalty you're prescribing for ASA isn't draconian, but the NFHS one is.

You're right, that was what I was missing. That makes sense now. Thanks! :)

That's TWO things that make sense. Well, sorta. Kinda.

I can't resist saying this: If the FLEX had been listed on the lineup card alongside the DP, then this would never have happened.

This is one of the points of the DP/FLEX rule that causes a tremendous amount of confusion, a pseudo 10th spot, that really doesn't exist.

Life would be much simpler if the two players, who can only bat in a particular spot in the order (i.e. the DP & FLEX), were actually listed in that spot.

* * *

The originator of the post made a point of saying that the DP did not bat in the #1 spot. Would it have really mattered if the DP actually was batting in the #1 spot?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN