Short Handed?
 

A recent situation was brought up at our mid-high school season
meeting last nite.

Here's the sitch: (ASA rule set) Team A has only 9 players to start the game.
In the 3rd inning, Team A is batting with two outs and a player gets in a run-down, mis-steps and "tweaks" her ankle. She is tagged for the third out.
Team A takes the field with 8 players (2 outfielders) and the injured player remains on the bench. Team A completes the half-inning on defense and enters the dugout to begin their turn at bat. Team A bats through the order and the next batter due up is the player who did not play defense in the previous half-inning. She walks out of the dugout tells the umpire that she feels fine and wants to hit.

The question is: Should she be allowed to hit or not?

The debate was whether she has "left the game" since she did not play defense and therefore cannot return to the line-up (Rule 4-1-D-2-f)

FYI - Obviously,this was not a blood rule situation

If a player leaves the game and play continues under the shorthanded rule, they may not return. Once they are out of the game, they're out of the game.

It's wise to be proactive about this by talking with the coach after they get their player(s) settled. Simply ask them what they're going to do with their lineup: ask them how the player's feeling, if the player is going to sit out a while, if the coach is making any changes, etc. If the coach wants to bench the injured player and has no subs, remind them that play will continue under the shorthanded rule, but she can't return. Make sure that's what the coach wants to do.

Head it off at the pass.

I'm not understanding what is debatable about this. If the team was shorthanded on defense, not fielding the required number (9), then of course she has left the game, and they are playing under the short-handed rule. You wouldn't let them continue with 7 or less on defense with them telling you that they are still batting enough to continue, would you?

Also not sure why you imply the blood rule would be an exception, either. Rule 4.9-B says to "Apply the rules of the game regarding substitution, short-handed rule and re-entry if necessary." The only difference might be the length of time you would consider a "reasonable time" to determine if she is leaving the game or will continue to play. I think most of us would give a bit more leeway to stopping a bleeding condition than to decide if she can play with a "tweaked" ankle.

Without making suggestions that might be construed as assisting one team over the other.

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.

I'm just getting my line-up straight, coach. If you're pulling her, you're pulling her.

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.

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

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

OK so I think we all agree under ASA an injured player who leaves the game (i.e. fails to play on either offense or defense) with no sub available has invoked the short handed rule. If the injury involved bleeding, she can come back later and the team will no longer be short handed. If the injury does not involve bleeding, she cannot come back later.

You know, stated that way the rule sounds kind of weird but I am pretty sure that is what the rule book says. :)

Many of us do high school games under NFHS rules instead of ASA rules. I cannot find anywhere in the NFHS book that states that a player who leaves and causes the team to go short handed cannot return, except that a player who has been rendered unconcious may not play again in that game or any other game that same day without a written authorization from a doctor.

On the other hand some of the verbage in 3-3-8d seems to imply that the injured player cannot return.. "Once a team has gone short handed and another eligible player is available that player may fill the empty space in the lineup.

Hmmmmm....

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

OK, anyone have the answer to this?
I, for one, would like to know....

NFHS Rules Meeting -June 7th.

So would all of these guys! :D

Lenghty Discussion on This Topic