Playing with Eight Question

[JBowling]

This question comes from a fellow umpire in my association. I don't have a case book in front of me. It is a FED rules question.

"Game starts with team A using a nine player line-up. In the third inning, the number 3 hitter goes over to compete in the shot put at the track meet. Team A has no subs. We declare an out when his at bat comes up in the fourth inning. Shortly after his at bat, he returns to the field and his coach informs us of his return to the line-up. Does this constitute a re-entry? No one took his place in the line-up. Since there are no subs available we would tend not to worry, but in the seventh when he gets on base, the coach wants to pinch-run with a kid who just got out of band practice. Can this guy re-enter?"


I say once he comes back after leaving the line-up, he must be re-entered into the spot since an out was being taken. When the pinch-runner enters to run, the original player has now used all his eligibility for the game and may not re-enter.

What do you guys think?

[Richard_Siegel]

The out charged when the starter did not come to bat in the 3rd inning is charged to the starter's batting record. For the purpose of the scorebook, it is no different then if the starter came to bat and struck out. The out can't be charged to anyone else because NO substitution was made. Now we all know that beginning in 2007 the rules allow a team playing short-handed with eight players to return to nine players, the new player may enter in the game in the same slot in the batting order as the player who left.

This new rule does not preclude the starter himself, the player who left the game, from becoming the “new ninth player” and he may resume his participation in the game in the same slot in the batting order as the when he left.

At the point the player in the posted situation came back to the game, since no other player has ever occupied the starter's spot in the batting order, is as if the starter never left the game.

Mt feeling is, now that it is legal for a team playing short-handed with eight players to return to a batting order of nine players I should expect that the rulebook would have specified that if the play who arrives to fill the open 9th slot is the SAME person who left the game earlier, that action would revoke that player's eligibility to re-enter the game later on once an actual substitute player goes into the game for him at some later time.

Hence, if a PR goes in for the starter, that is the first time the starter has left the game for the purpose of the re-entry rule, and he may re-enter for the PR later in the game.

[Bluefish]

It would seem to me that once the players has been out of the line up as evidenced by his taking an out, when he comes back into the game he has re-entered, unless it specifically allows this in the rules. I am going to consider his eligibilty as used up and not allow him to renete for the sub later on.

[Richard_Siegel]

It would seem to me that once the players has been out of the line up as evidenced by his taking an out, when he comes back into the game he has re-entered, unless it specifically allows this in the rules. I am going to consider his eligibilty as used up and not allow him to renete for the sub later on.

Suppose in the 1st inning B4 bats when B3 is due up. Then after B3 reaches base the defense appeals that the B4 batted out of order. The umpire declares B3 out for missing his time at-bat. Would B3's eligibilty be used up and would you not allow him to re-enter for the sub later on?

What would be the difference between the player from the original posted play who left the game, without sustitution, took an out when his time at-bat came up, and the player (B3 above) called out for missing his at-bat in a batting out of order situation?

Both batter failed to come to the plate when it was there time to be up. The only difference was that one was a little farther away from the field then the other when he missed his at-bat. But otherwise, I don't see the rulebook treating them differently.

[AugieDonatelli]

Simple way to look at it:

Any starter may re-enter after being substituted for one time. He was only substituted for once, so no matter how many at-bats he missed, it was the first time he was subbed for, so he may re-enter.

[rcaverly]

This question comes from a fellow umpire in my association.

Yeah, right.

In the third inning, the number 3 hitter goes over to compete in the shot put at the track meet. Team A has no subs. We declare an out when his at bat comes up in the fourth inning. Shortly after his at bat, he returns to the field and his coach informs us of his return to the line-up. Does this constitute a re-entry?

Yes. He's been out of the lineup when either:

1. His turn at bat came up, was not available and penalized by being declared out; or,

2. His team went on defense and the ball was declared live. This allowed F1 to make a legal pitch with only 8 players on the field in fair territory, except F2, at the time-of-pitch.

He was a listed started and therefore allowed to "re-enter" in his original batting slot.

No one took his place in the line-up. Since there are no subs available we would tend not to worry, but in the seventh when he gets on base, the coach wants to pinch-run with a kid who just got out of band practice. Can this guy re-enter?"

I often worry whenever a coach wants to use the proverbial "kid who just got out of band practice." Ha!

I'm not exactly clear on which "guy" we're talking about. In regards to the starter:

Had the starter left the lineup as I explained above (when due up while on offense or not in fair territory at the time-of-pitch while on defense,) came back in the lineup (re-entered) and then left the lineup again when an eligible sub ran for him, he is no longer eligible to return legally to the lineup.

I say once he comes back after leaving the line-up, he must be re-entered into the spot since an out was being taken. When the pinch-runner enters to run, the original player has now used all his eligibility for the game and may not re-enter. What do you guys think?

I think you got it right.

[Richard_Siegel]

I say once he comes back after leaving the line-up, he must be re-entered into the spot since an out was being taken. When the pinch-runner enters to run, the original player has now used all his eligibility for the game and may not re-enter. What do you guys think?

I think you got it right.

I think you got it wrong.

If no substitute enters, the starter has not been withdrawn. Hence, the starter can still re-enter at a later time if a sub replaces him.

You guys keep focusing on the the fact that the starting player "left the line-up," when all he did was fail to bat when his turn came up.

What is the meaning of that phrase "left the line up?" A manager would not go to the umpire and say "in the 6th batting slot we are withdrawing Wilson and there will be no replacment." If Wilson goes off to do a shot-put, or falls alseep on the bencen, or is on the toilet, and misses his at-bat, Wilson has not "left the line up," he only missed his turn to bat and is declared out. Wilson is still a starter with one re-entry.

Right now two US Senators are in the hospital with long-term illnesses. They might be out for months. They have not left the Senate. Why? Because they have not been replaced. The same applies to the batting order. What is the meaning of that phrase "left the line up?" It means the batter has been replaced by a substitue.

Just like a batter being called out for a BOO, the rule book says nothing about a that player losing his re-entry status. That is because missing your turn at-bat is NOT the dame as having "left the line-up." The rulebook simply says the starter has one re-entry after a substutute has replaced him.

[bobjenkins]

I think you got it wrong.

If no substitute enters, the starter has not been withdrawn. Hence, the starter can still re-enter at a later time if a sub replaces him.

Sorry, Richard, but FED 2007 Interp 16 is a similar situation and indicates the player "may reenter the game in his vacated spot in the lineup provided he has re-entry eligibility left as a starting player."

So, leaving, then coming back is a re-entry.

[Richard_Siegel]

I think you got it wrong.

If no substitute enters, the starter has not been withdrawn. Hence, the starter can still re-enter at a later time if a sub replaces him.

Sorry, Richard, but FED 2007 Interp 16 is a similar situation and indicates the player "may reenter the game in his vacated spot in the lineup provided he has re-entry eligibility left as a starting player."

So, leaving, then coming back is a re-entry.

Bob,

I'm not convinced. I can see your point point and how one could interpret SITUATION 16 the way you have. Unfortunately, I think SITUATION 16 is ambiguos on the point.

Here is the entire Interpretation.

SITUATION 16: The shortstop, trying to stop a ground ball, scrapes his elbow which, despite the trainer's best effort, continues to bleed. The team has no available substitutes. Two innings later, the trainer has the bleeding stopped and the elbow properly bandaged. RULING: It is legal for a team to continue play with only eight players. The shortstop may now re-enter the game in his vacated spot in the lineup provided he has re-entry eligibility left as a starting player. (4-4-1f, note 2)

My impression of SITUATION 16 is that this Interp is only meant to illustrate an example that a player who has missed his turn to bat may return to the game in the same batting slot. The phrase "provided he has re-entry eligibility left as a starting player," is not meaningful to whether it can be considered a substitution. That phrase is a kind of boiler plate phrase the FED always uses whenever a case play is being discussed that involves a starter coming back into a game.

I don't read SITUATION 16 as implying that shortstop missing an at-bat (with no substitute replacing him) means he lost his re-entry status.

It would have been better for this discussion if the the ruling read:

RULING: It is legal for a team to continue play with only eight players. The shortstop may now re-enter the game in his vacated spot in the lineup, however, he no longer has re-entry eligibility because missing an at bat is the same as a substituion of a starting player.

or,

RULING: It is legal for a team to continue play with only eight players. The shortstop may now re-enter the game in his vacated spot in the lineup, however, the shortstop missing an at bat is not a substituion of a starting player, so he still has re-entry eligibility if he is removed later for a substitute.

That way there would not be a question.

[rcaverly]

What do you guys think?I think you got it right.I think you got it wrong.

...and that could very well be. Never forget that we're debating interpretations of NFHS rules. We should both get a life. Ha!

If no substitute enters, the starter has not been withdrawn. Hence, the starter can still re-enter at a later time if a sub replaces him.

One part of Carl Sagan's "baloney detection kit" contained a statement to the effect: arguments from authority carry little weight, "Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have been."

Having said that, I submit the following authoritative statement from NFHS' own 2007 High School Rules of Baseball By Topic*, p. 158, "This 2007 rule change allows a team to return to nine players if they had dropped to eight during the game for any reason, as long as they have eligibility in the game. An injured player may return once he is able to continue (if he has re-entry privileges available) or a player that has arrived late may be entered into the game."

Maybe it's all "baloney," but I glean from the above, and elsewhere, that a player having participated in a contest and for whatever reason is no longer doing so, has "left the lineup," gone, adios, sayonara, kaput. Thus, therefore and maybe, if he wants to participate again in the contest, and if he is eligible to do so, then he may "re-enter." Logic dictates that to "re-enter" one must have previously "un-entered," but please don't quote me. I wouldn't want the "authorities" to pick up on it.

You guys keep focusing on the the fact that the starting player "left the line-up," when all he did was fail to bat when his turn came up.

I acquiesce to the distinquished gentleman from New Jersey on this point. My conclusion warning light was fully illuminated long before I reset my logic circuit breaker.

What is the meaning of that phrase "left the line up?" A manager would not go to the umpire and say "in the 6th batting slot we are withdrawing Wilson and there will be no replacment." If Wilson goes off to do a shot-put, or falls alseep on the bencen, or is on the toilet, and misses his at-bat, Wilson has not "left the line up," he only missed his turn to bat and is declared out. Wilson is still a starter with one re-entry.


I would guess that the crew would become cognizant of the fact that team A's number 3 hitter was absent without leave while his team was on offense when, and only if, team B appeals either B3 wasn't batting, or had failed to bat, in order. On the latter, he would indeed be declared out and all that that includes. And that is all while his team remains on offense.

But, on the former, would not the UIC ask for the proper batter (B3) to appear? I think so. Now, when team A's coach explains why B3 ain't gonna be out anytime soon, my linguistical logic goes something like this, "Skip, any eligible subs? No? Do you wanna go with eight? Yeah? OK, B3's out. Is B4 here? Great! Send 'im out here and have someone police up the deck."

On the other side of the scorebook, while team A is on defense, our able-bodied UIC wants to start the next half-inning and duly notes the batter and catcher are set in their respective box, F1 is in-contact with the ball, the infielders are in position and ready to go. Whoops! Someone's missing. Now if it's an outfielder he could call and signal play and make the ball live. If F1 delivers, it's an illegal pitch. Here comes Skip. Or, our UIC could just ask, "Skip, where in the name of Pete Rose is your other fielder?" Whatdaya' mean he ain't here? Any subs? I didn't think so. Why does this always happen in my games? (Oh, excuse me. I digress.) OK, Skip, you going with eight? OK, let's go, and have someone police up the deck."

I'm going with B3 has done "un-entered."

This could all be baloney. Remember we're debating NFHS interpretations. Oh how I need to get a life!



*I edited the title for the referenced NFHS pub. And then had to do it again. Agh!

[AugieDonatelli]

"Logic dictates that to "re-enter" one must have previously "un-entered," but please don't quote me. I wouldn't want the "authorities" to pick up on it.

Too late for that, buddy! :lol:

[lpd63]

Just got back from our state clinic here in Illinois...

Johnny leaves the game to throw the shotput in a track meet and there is no substitute...He returns and is "re-entered" in the lineup...When the band rehearsal is over two more players arrive and one is substituted for Johnny. Johnny cannot re-enter since the IHSA interpretation is that he has already re-entered once when he came back from tossing the shot put...I just love the FED.

[Tim_C]

If a player leaves the game it does not matter if he has a legal substitute or not. He has left the game.

When he returns he is, in fact, using re-entry to rejoin the line-up.

When "player nine" returns he re-enters and cannot re-enter yet again.

Regards,

[DG]

The out charged when the starter did not come to bat in the 3rd inning is charged to the starter's batting record. For the purpose of the scorebook, it is no different then if the starter came to bat and struck out. I don't see a basis for charging an out for absence against the batter's batting record, in the FED book (9-3). It's an out by rule and does not need to be assigned to an individual. It is different than striking out. To strike out you have to be present. Please cite a ruling.