Short Handed?

[Zepp]

In response to AltUmpSteve - the exception I was referring to in regards to the Blood Rule is at the end of Rule 4-1-d : A player who has left the game under the blood rule may return even after missing a turn at bat

The umpires that brought this stitch to the meeting felt that since the player did not miss a turn at bat,
then they haven't left the game. They felt that an advantage was not gained by playing the defensive inning
minus one player.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Zepp

In response to AltUmpSteve - the exception I was referring to in regards to the Blood Rule is at the end of Rule 4-1-d : A player who has left the game under the blood rule may return even after missing a turn at bat

The umpires that brought this stitch to the meeting felt that since the player did not miss a turn at bat,
then they haven't left the game. They felt that an advantage was not gained by playing the defensive inning
minus one player.

Good catch on your part; I missed that exception, and took the blood rule statement as a stand alone.

But, I don't see where advantage gained is a factor in any part of any rule. How would it ever be a strategic advantage to play defense shorthanded? But, that isn't an issue; the fact is, playing 8 defensively in FP and 9 defensively in SP is one less than full, and is playing short-handed.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Zepp

In response to AltUmpSteve - the exception I was referring to in regards to the Blood Rule is at the end of Rule 4-1-d : A player who has left the game under the blood rule may return even after missing a turn at bat

The umpires that brought this stitch to the meeting felt that since the player did not miss a turn at bat,
then they haven't left the game. They felt that an advantage was not gained by playing the defensive inning
minus one player.

Aaah, the old TPOAD! Sorry, but your fellow umpires were in error.

[Zepp]

The umpires did acknowledge that in hind sight they booted the call.

Some additional non-relevant info - it was a sub-varsity game (JV), game was not close,
and they were caught off guard with the sudden "miraculous" recovery of the tweaked ankle when it was her turn to bat - the feeling I got from their explanation at the meeting was that due to the game situation(s) mentioned above they felt that since Team A was putting themselves at a disadvantage by going down one fielder on defense and the injured player did not lose a turn at bat (misinterp of "short-handed" rule) they allowed her to bat in the "spirit of play" - (which sometimes conflicts with the more obscure rules and occasionally comes back to bite us)

Neither coach chirped with the ruling (possibly due to lack of any knowledge of the short-handed / player leaving the game rule)

It was a good topic of discussion - especially with our post-season varsity high school tournament(s) just around the corner.

Thanks for your insight and comments

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Zepp

They felt that an advantage was not gained by playing the defensive inning minus one player.

Ah, yes... the "No advantage gained" corrolary that lets you skip or ignore rules. Which book was that in again?