Well, ASA doesn't have a definition for an "illegal substitute". Other than that....

Case play is for unreported sub, not an illegal batter. Remember an illegal batter is declared out in 4.6.F. Then all other provisions of of 4.6.A-C are applied.

An unreported sub is a player who has a right to be doing what they did, just was not reported. An Illegal Batter is a player which had no right being anywhere near that batter's box.

I disagree, somewhat. 4.6.F states that the I.P/I.B is DQ'd, not that they are out. 4.6.C[1-9] gets you the out (assuming they weren't put out already as in the OP.) However, the out has to be recorded and applied to someone in the batting order, doesn't it? Shouldn't it be applied to B1, then B2 comes to bat? How can you have an out apply to someone not in the batting order (the DQ'd FLEX)?

Slightly different scenario: If an unreported sub comes to bat for B1, gets put out at 1B, the next batter is B2. Why shouldn't it apply the same way if the FLEX bats for B1?

I'm confused enough now to neither agree or disagree. But why would you have to apply the out to someone in the batting order? In the weird BOO codes that allow you to get multiple outs for the violation, you must book one of those outs outside the order. So why not here?
________
Vaporizer Reviews

I would say so; this application doesn't meet the definition of a "substitute".

A substitute is a player not listed in the starting line-up, or a player that left the game and re-enters. In this case, this was the starting FLEX, and, so long as she played defense, never left the game.

You are correct. Reading too many damn things at one time.

Maybe, maybe not. The definition of Batting Order only addresses those who are scheduled to bat. The FLEX is placed in the tenth position of the line-up according to 4.3.B, but in the batting order in RS #15.

Good question, but not the strangest thing I've ever seen :rolleyes:

Don't know. Was B1 out for the play, or because it was brought to the umpire's attention B1 was an U.S.?

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying any of us are right or wrong, just pointing out the question raised that really isn't addressed what I would consider clear. Probably wouldn't even had raised it if Ed didn't mention it.

You might re-read BOO again... you're not correct here.

DH...great job handling it the way you did. Glad it wasn't me...and yes I now have the same headache Mark Di has.

I think I'm going to see Western Deputy MB and Region 15 UIC WBS tonight. If so, I'll run this by them.

Well, it looks like you ran it by them and it made the rules and clarifications for July 2009, which I am sure everyone has read by now.

For the non-ASA world, in the hope that all sanctions will agree:

"Ruling: When the FLEX batted in the 1st position in the batting order, (the DP is batting in the 7th position), they batted “for someone other than the original DP”. This makes the FLEX an ILLEGAL BATTER according to Rule 4, Section 6F[2]. The Flex is then disqualified and the offending team must put a substitute in for the FLEX or simply activate the DP on defense for the FLEX and drop down to 9 players on the Line-up card.

Rule 4, Section 6F[2] ILLEGAL BATTER (Fast Pitch). Placing the “FLEX” player in one of the first nine positions in the batting order for someone other than the original DP. EFFECT: Section F[2-4] The illegal Player is disqualified and replaced with a legal substitute. All other provisions of Rule 4, Section 6 A-C [1-9]apply."

Pretty much what we said.