BOO or Ineligible Player
 

PONY rules (didn't happen during Nationals ;))

As BU, I watched from behind 1B as my partner resolved this:

Clueless OC thinks DP doesn't bat, but thinks Flex does.

Inattentive Defensive bookkeeper doesn't catch it 'til 2nd time around.

B8, DP, is scheduled to bat.
B9 bats instead. Singles.
Flex comes to bat.
Before 1st pitch, DC calls time. Appeals BOO.
B8 ruled out, then after discussion, enlightened OC decides it would be prudent to put B1 in to bat instead of Flex.

Got me thinking, though... the 1st time around, when it wasn't caught, the Flex was absolutely an ineligible player when she batted instead of B1. Is this handled the same as other ineligibles, where even if it's discovered innings later, the rule is enforced and the player is now restricted to the bench?

But how would one prove, a couple innings later, that something like that happened?

When DC comes out to appeal the BOO, the still-clueless OC (before being enlightened) states something to the effect that "this is what we did 2 innings ago..."

Unfortunately, PU can't say, "before you shoot yourself in the foot, OC, let me sort out this BOO appeal" :)

I can see that, but you wouldn't believe a coach telling you something that happened in his favor 2 innings ago, so I can't see believing him accurately telling me what he did wrong either.

Good point... that would be my "out" should the DC insist. ;)

Just to clarify, OC was saying "this is what we did 2 innings ago" to defend what he thought was a non-BOO...

Yes, I got that. And to DC ... no one pointed anything out in the first inning. And now he's likely just saying that because he thinks it will get him out of trouble right now. We have no way to verify that actually happened that way in first inning.

What if the scorekeepers put the details in the book?

I suppose that if the scorekeeper in this game was neutral and someone we could trust was completely accurate, then the correct ruling would be restricting at the point the infraction was caught, even after the fact.

Which is the rule in PONY...

Rule 4 Sec.5 Offensive Unreported Substitutes: If a substitute enters the game without reporting, the following shall apply:
c. If the unreported substitute is discovered after completing her turn at bat and after the next pitch:
(1) She is declared an ineligible player
(2) Called out.
(3) Restricted to the bench.
(4) Any advance by base-runners while the ineligible batter was at bat, is legal.
(5) Manager shall be removed from the game.

PLAY Jones a legal substitute, enters the game in the third inning unreported. In the fifth inning, the opponents report this to the umpire.

RULING The player (Jones) is immediately removed, declared an ineligible player and restricted to the bench. All play by or on Jones is legal. A legal substitute must be reported into the game. Manager is removed from the game.

Earlier this season, the PONY National UIC sent out an approved ruling that in a case like that in the OP, where the Flex (unreported) entered the game offensively and hit for a player other than the DP.
The AR was that this was to be considered an ineligible player situation, not a BOO; and Rule 4 Sec.5 would apply.

Are you correcting me, or agreeing with me?

OK, Kevin, just want to understand/clarify, as I have no knowledge about Pony at all.

Illegible means unable to read it or understand it; did you mean ineligible (not capable of being there), illegal (cannot legally be there) or does the rule actually use that word, illegible?

Foregiveness granted if you "smartphone" changed the word for you.

No, I'm not correcting you. And yes, I'm agreeing with what you said.

Just supporting your opinion of the play with the PONY rule for the benefit of the poster who started the thread.

Ineligible. Time to get the bi-focals checked.
I'll go back and fix 'em
Thanks for the catch Steve.