DEFO bats out-of-order

[Dakota]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Personally, I'd like to see an official interpretation on this because it is very common for the DEFO to bat as if she were the tenth batter.

I get the impression that this is not been considered (yet?) by the arbiters of ASA rules interpretation.

Personally, I have yet to see the situation of the DEFO innocently coming to bat as B10, although I have disallowed a coach from bringing the DEFO up to bat for a player other than the DP, but that was in response to the coach telling me "#23 is coming in to bat for #19" - and I check the line up card and tell the coach he can't do that.

If it does happen, my interpretation will be that the DEFO is coming in for B1 as an unannounced illegal batter, not BOO. And then, if DEFO gets on base, and a pitch is thrown, then go from there with DQ's and BOO's, recognizing that at that point, the DEFO's "at bat" is now legal, even though the DEFO herself is not. Therefore, B2 is due up, not B1.

[CecilOne]

If the batting order is "straight nine", no DP, DEFO, DH, or EP and someone not in the lineup bats, she is an unreported sub. Unless there is a specific interpretation issued for DEFO, that proves that what I said above is wrong and the only usable approach is that the DEFO is an unreported and illegal sub for B1 or whoever was due to bat.

I also agree with Dakota's comment that "if DEFO gets on base, and a pitch is thrown, then go from there with DQ's and BOO's, recognizing that at that point, the DEFO's "at bat" is now legal, even though the DEFO herself is not. Therefore, B2 is due up, not B1.".

Also, if the protest is made before the pitch is thrown, the DEFO is DQ and must be replaced. My other mistake above is that the DP can not replace the DEFO at this point because it's the wrong batting order spot. And B1 would be an illegal reentry into the B2 spot, so B1 is also DQ.

I also agree that it's not BOO for the DEFO because the DEFO is not in the "batting" order, unless she has reported as a sub for the DP.

Another question: if the DEFO is replaced by a new player, does that continue or terminate the DEFO role? It seems to me it terminates because the new player is in the B1 spot.

I dread the next NFHS season when 45 states worth of "gym teacher" coaches begin using the new rule.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne
And B1 would be an illegal reentry into the B2 spot, so B1 is also DQ.

Yes, but if she comes to bat, that is merely BOO. She would, however, be the legal player to replace the DEFO on base, wouldn't she?

Another question: if the DEFO is replaced by a new player, does that continue or terminate the DEFO role? It seems to me it terminates because the new player is in the B1 spot.

Good question. My "knee jerk" response is that it terminates the DEFO unless the coach has another eliglble sub to enter as the replacement for the DEFO in the DEFO position (not on base, since that was as illegal position for the DEFO).

My brain hurts!

I dread the next NFHS season when 45 states worth of "gym teacher" coaches begin using the new rule.

Plus, since ASA is rumored to be adopting the NFHS terminology, it will take me half the season to keep straight whether the "flex" position is the DP or the DEFO!

[Edited by Dakota on Jul 15th, 2003 at 10:58 AM]

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by Dakota
... snip ...
My brain hurts!

Plus, since ASA is rumored to be adopting the NFHS terminology, it will take me half the season to keep straight whether the "flex" position is the DP or the DEFO!

[Edited by Dakota on Jul 15th, 2003 at 10:58 AM]

http://www.advil.com

If keeping it straight is your problem, you are ahead of me finding out which it is.
Especially when all the coaches are saying and writing DH, or the EH I've seen on some youth lineups this summer.

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by Dakota

Yes, but if she comes to bat, that is merely BOO.
She would, however, be the legal player to replace the DEFO on base, wouldn't she?

To me, it sounds inconsistent to say DEFO was a sub for B1, actualized when pitched to, but B1 reappearing is just BOO.

Originally posted by Dakota
... snip ...

Good question. My "knee jerk" response is that it terminates the DEFO unless the coach has another eliglble sub to enter as the replacement for the DEFO in the DEFO position (not on base, since that was as illegal position for the DEFO).
... snip ...

Agree.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne
To me, it sounds inconsistent to say DEFO was a sub for B1, actualized when pitched to, but B1 reappearing is just BOO.

I thought about that, but here is my reasoning...

1) B10 is not a legal batting order position, and to assume the DEFO is coming in for B4 (DP) and then batting out of order is assuming a double mistake (unreported sub batting out of order). The simplest error to charge, then, is illegal batter for B1.

2) B1, however, is a legal batter in the order, but since DEFO's "at bat" is legal (since a pitch was thrown), the next batter due up is B2. Therefore, B1 is BOO. Same as B1 due up, B2 bats and gets on base, B1 comes to bat, a pitch is thrown, B2's "at bat" is now legal, defense appeals BOO. B1 is BOO, since the proper batter is B3. B3 replaces B1 at bat and assumes the count.

This is when my brain started to hurt!