When does player officially leave the game
 

Team has 9 players to start the game. Player gets hurt as BR when she is called out. She does not play on defense for 2 innings. When her next time at bat comes up, she bats. Since the team only had 9 players, she was never replaced by a substitute and the team played defense with 8 players.

Question: Did she officially leave the game when she got hurt and re-entered to bat, or was she still officially in the game even though she did not play defense? Remember, she never missed a time at bat.

Speaking ASA, I think you're looking for something that isn't there. She leaves the game when she ceases to play her position or bat in her spot.

The team played shorthanded for 2 innings. The player who leaves the game under the shorthanded rule may not reenter. ASA 4-1-D-2-f.

Rules set is important to this response; in every case, the result is a forfeit, just different when (and if you had the opportunity be proactive and save the forfeit).

NCAA; when they didn't field 9 defensive players, game ended in a forfeit.

ASA; when they didn't field 9 defensive players, they were playing shorthanded. Unless you (umpire) invoked the blood rule, that player is no longer eligible to play (4.1-D(2)f), and her batting later was an illegal player. The penalty for her illegal re-entry is forfeit (4.8-A Effect).

NFHS; when they didn't field 9 defensive players, they were playing shorthanded (4-3-1g and 3-3-8d). Unless you (umpire) invoked the blood rule, that player is no longer eligible to play, and her batting later was an illegal substitute. The penalty for an illegal sub is disqualification, etc. (depending on when discovered; read rule 3-4 in its entirety). Most states would likely grant an administrative protest for using an ineligible player and grant a forfeit to the offended team.

In NCAA, the game was over immediately. In ASA and NFHS, you should have stopped the batter from illegally participating.

NCAA it is a forfeit under rule 8.1.1.

For ASA and NFHS, Both rule sets defined a shorthanded situation as a team that cannot provide the required number of players in the batting order. There is no reference to fielding. Therefore, I would not invoke the shorthanded rule until such time as the player misses a turn at bat. (ASA - 4.1.d.2.a; NFHS - 4-3-1-g)

Also to be clear that the penalty for an illegal player uner ASA is a disqualification of the player under rule 4.6.E - Effect)

Was there a substitute available?

I disagree. 4-1-d-2-d refers to "if" the player is a runner or batter... leaving the possiblity of them NOT being a runner or batter (e,g, a fielder). Reference to the batting order is for count purposes (when do you go shorthanded) and for charging the out (... 2-e), which, BTW, also implies they may have been playing shorthanded for some time before the player is due to bat.

I got to learn this rule first hand at a Women's ASA FP National. Exact scenario you cited happened at my game. Player got overheated and left game, no subs available. About two innings later she came back and I allowed it. Found out after the game, from the UIC, that I shouldn't have allowed it (made no difference in the game as the shorthanded team was getting it handed to them anyway, and opposing team was happy she came back). Once they took field and played without her, she had left the game. Rules do not permit her to come back.

Personally, I don't understand why the player isn't allowed to come back. I'm sure the rule serves to protect some advantage but don't see what it is.

What about all the defense being required to be in fair ground, exc. F2?

What does "invoke the shorthanded rule " imply other than when a team is at bat?

Remember the alternative prior to the shorthanded rule. The idea of the rule was to avoid forfeits. The team is already being given a break by being allowed to continue play as opposed to packing their bags.

Since a team can start or continue play with less than the "required" number of players without qualifying a cause, I guess there could be an abuse of the rule.

Simple. Goes like this...

"Oh coach, I'm not batting so well today."

"No problem, Mary. Fake an injury and we'll go shorthanded. After your batting spot is skipped, we'll put you back on defense in this tight game."

"Thanks, coach! You're swell!"

Okay, cheesy, I know. But don't think for a moment that a coach wouldn't pull that if given the option.

But that would result in an out. The advantage to not playing defense is the question.
________
Web shows

Assume runners on 1st and 3rd, 1 out. B9 due up, tends to GIDP. B1 follows who has a 500 OBP and a 400 BA. Coaches play the odds. But, it would be simpler to just give B9 the "take" sign on every pitch...

How's this for a philosophy?

If she isn't physically capable to stand in one spot on defense, she probably shouldn't be batting and running the bases, either.

Or,

You can't have a DP without the FLEX.

"Oh, coach, it's so hot. And, if I have to field a ball, I might break a nail."

"Mary, we would forfeit if you don't play. I know you like to hit, so how about if we just say you are injured, and you can hit so we don't forfeit." Meanwhile, Coach is thinking "She isn't any help on defense, anyway; always thinking she might break a nail if she actually had to field the ball."

All great, but is there an advantage gained?
________
SecretCharm live

I really doesn't matter. The shorthanded rule is there, as Mike has said over and over, to give the shorthanded team a break and avoid a forfeit. The rule about no re-entry of the player who leaves to create the shorthanded situation is to prevent it from becoming anything else.

Would you not called an illegal pitch because there was no advantage gained?

Just because there is no "advantage gained", if it is a violation of the
rule set you are utilizing, you should call it. Don't believe that any rule set
says forget it if "No Advantage is gained."

Perhaps I've been unclear here. I don't see any ambiguity in the rule. If we go shorthanded, I know not to let the player back in. I'm questioning the worth of the rule as written by asking how the defense gains any advantage from playing 8 players instead of 9.
________
RECALL ZOLOFT

Defense or offense, they would gain an advantage beyond merely allowing the game to continue. They would be allowed to remove a player from the game without having a sub available and then re-enter that player.

Tom, I don't mean to come across as dense, but I'm not getting it. I don't see the advantage to that. The only reason you'd call that an advantage is because it'd be suspending some other rule. If there were no rule that said that you couldn't play defense with less people, would there be an argument for making one?
________
Roll a joint

They would have a substitution option not otherwise provided in the rules.

Maybe the fielder just sucks and would be a detriment to the team in the field, but can hit like crazy. That is the sole purpose of the DH in some little ball circles.

Or maybe it is just a matter of decorum. An instrument to keep order. What happens when the Flex does not enter the field to play defense? She's out of the game. But why, where is the advantage to either team if this rule is not applied?

For that matter, since people can cover their face for religious reasons when having their photograph taken for a driver's license and/or passport, why bother having the photos at all? Since the rule isn't applied to all.....

Thanks for all the input. I let the player re-enter the game. When I got home and was thinking about the game, I realized that I may have been in wrong.

It is good to have these type discussions so we will be able to explain our decision to a coach when asked.

If we learn from our mistakes, and the mistakes of others, we will be better umpires in the future.

The following paragraph from the ASA RS 48 might help clarify the "why when there is no advantage" discussion:

I agree with that up to a point.

And that point is that if that were truly the case, then I should be a pretty damn awesome umpire by now! ;)

Just kidding, your statement is very true.

Actually, you are correct (as in the "up to a point" remark).

We only learn when we realize there may have been an error on our behalf and strive to confirm and make the proper correction.

I'm sure we have all run into Ol' Smitty that has been doing it the same way for more than a hundred years. Got his start doing sandlot ball for Connie Mack and is so good, never needed to attend a clinic or school. After all, with all his years, how in the world could those young whippersnappers know anything more than Ol' Smitty?

The only thing that encourages me more than a young umpire getting a tough call right on the field is seeing that umpire getting back to his/her car and pulling out the rule book to confirm their call was correct or finding out what they did wrong. That type of umpire will rarely, if ever, make the same mistake twice.

That's why the first word in that sentence is, perhaps, the most crucial.

If.

For anyone who still needs one, I can think of an advantage to be gained...

Say it's 105 degrees in the shade. Your pitcher (or catcher, or...) is looking a little woozy from the heat. Sitting her down to cool off when the other team can't/won't/didn't for their respective player would be an advantage. You can cool off a lot better on the bench where you've got ice than standing out in left field.