2020 DH Rule Change

[Aging_Arbiter]

ok, I thought you were saying NCAA changed too.  I don't do college ball, so I didn't know.  At plate meeting (with captains in attendance), after getting line up cards, I look at them and usually give something like........NL vs AL today, right guys?.......................once

 

 

[Forest Ump]

21 hours ago, Jimurray said:

NCAA does not require a pitcher in a 9 man lineup to be declared as P/DH. The difference in FED is that it is a PLAYER/DH, although most of the occurrences will probably be with a pitcher.

I think you took my statement out of content. I was referring to @minnz stating he would hammer the coach multiple times at the plate meeting if he wanted a player/dh.

I used p/dh in my original statement but since we are talking HS I assumed that we all understand that to be player/DH. I can see where the confusion may lie with those who also work college.

[Minnz]

On 1/13/2020 at 7:47 AM, Aging_Arbiter said:

Why?

With any new rule I feel preventative umpiring and working with the coach pregame is a good strategy. Why not ask a second or third time to triple check, thus avoiding any arguments innings later. It also will help some umpires understand the rule themselves. We all know plenty of umpires who don't embrace new rules understanding. I feel it does no harm and only good to make sure the coach understands what not calling out a DH means for the game.

[Minnz]

3 hours ago, Forest Ump said:

I think you took my statement out of content. I was referring to @minnz stating he would hammer the coach multiple times at the plate meeting if he wanted a player/dh.

I used p/dh in my original statement but since we are talking HS I assumed that we all understand that to be player/DH. I can see where the confusion may lie with those who also work college.

I was not aware confirmation and making sure the coach understands is considering "hammering."

[lawump]

And just when I thought I had this all figured out, the NFHS just gave my state this interpretation last night (of course, please check with your state to see if they are going to follow this interpretation):

1. - No courtesy runner for the P/DH or C/DH
2.  Coach can come out and "kill" or "terminate" the DH for the P/C and then be allowed to use a courtesy runner. They will not be able to use the DH any more.  IT does not matter if it is their 1st at bat, or 3rd at bat, or 4th. 

3. NEW - Follow the progression
1. Charlie is listed on the line-up as the  P/DH.  He completes the first inning on the mound and bats in the bottom of the first.  
2. Prior to the 2nd inning, Coach enters John to pitch for Charlie. Charlie now rolls to DH. 
3. Prior to the top of the 3rd, coach comes and wants to remove John from the mound and re-enter Charlie. - This is legal. Charlie still retains the P/DH in the lineup. (There has been no offensive sub, therefore the DH is not terminated)
4. Prior to the 4th inning coach comes and wants to enter Andy in to pitch. Charlie can legally roll to DH still. 
5. Prior to the 5th inning, coach comes and wants to enter Charlie back on the mound - This is legal and he will again retain the P/DH (he can do this because he is still in the lineup in the position. He has never left the position in the line-up.)

The NFHS interpretation is that in the above scenario, Charlie was never withdrawn from the line-up. He was simply rotating from defense to offense within the line-up
 

[HokieUmp]

13 minutes ago, lawump said:

3. NEW - Follow the progression
1. Charlie is listed on the line-up as the  P/DH.  He completes the first inning on the mound and bats in the bottom of the first.  
2. Prior to the 2nd inning, Coach enters John to pitch for Charlie. Charlie now rolls to DH. 
3. Prior to the top of the 3rd, coach comes and wants to remove John from the mound and re-enter Charlie. - This is legal. Charlie still retains the P/DH in the lineup. (There has been no offensive sub, therefore the DH is not terminated)
4. Prior to the 4th inning coach comes and wants to enter Andy in to pitch. Charlie can legally roll to DH still. 
5. Prior to the 5th inning, coach comes and wants to enter Charlie back on the mound - This is legal and he will again retain the P/DH (he can do this because he is still in the lineup in the position. He has never left the position in the line-up.)

The NFHS interpretation is that in the above scenario, Charlie was never withdrawn from the line-up. He was simply rotating from defense to offense within the line-up
 

This seems ..... not right to me.  I see what they're trying to say, but I disagree with it.  That's two re-entries, to me, making it an illegal substitution.  I get having another person pitch, leaving Charlie to hit, but that #5 being called "legal" .... nope.  Am I missing something?

And - sort of separately - the season starts down here in like 8 days, if you count scrimmages.  Why is NHFS issuing ANYTHING applicable to the '20 season?  Couldn't they just say "hey, we got asked about X, since there are a lot of you tricksy guys out there looking for angles.  Tune in next year and see what we decided!  We're freezing things where they're at."  (The baseball thing is another - we just got told at a state-sanction meeting on the 19th that "play but report" was our deal, and now it appears that Texas is going to the "don't play at all," at least for varsity.  Why have the meetings, and make 'em mandatory, if you're gonna change it anyway?)

[The Man in Blue]

Agreeing with @HokieUmp ... everything else is governed as if the DH and P (player) are separate people.  Charlie (P) is on defense and Charlie (DH) is on offense.

#5 violates that working principle.  Charlie (P) has indeed left the mound, field, and the game twice.  Charlie (DH) is still in the batting line up.  His position in the batting order has nothing to do with his defensive position.

(Finally, vindication on the CR! )

[maven]

3 hours ago, lawump said:

3. NEW - Follow the progression
1. Charlie is listed on the line-up as the  P/DH.  He completes the first inning on the mound and bats in the bottom of the first.  
2. Prior to the 2nd inning, Coach enters John to pitch for Charlie. Charlie now rolls to DH. 
3. Prior to the top of the 3rd, coach comes and wants to remove John from the mound and re-enter Charlie. - This is legal. Charlie still retains the P/DH in the lineup. (There has been no offensive sub, therefore the DH is not terminated)
4. Prior to the 4th inning coach comes and wants to enter Andy in to pitch. Charlie can legally roll to DH still. 
5. Prior to the 5th inning, coach comes and wants to enter Charlie back on the mound - This is legal and he will again retain the P/DH (he can do this because he is still in the lineup in the position. He has never left the position in the line-up.)

The NFHS interpretation is that in the above scenario, Charlie was never withdrawn from the line-up. He was simply rotating from defense to offense within the line-up
 

Correct. The role of the DH is terminated in the 1-player DH (that is, one player is both defense and DH) only when there's a sub on offense. That didn't happen here, so the DH is not terminated.

Also, having a sub on defense does not put Charlie out of the game. When the team subs for the defensive role, the DH is still in the game. That's the same as in the 2-player DH: subbing for the fielder puts the starting fielder out of the game but not the DH.

In the scenario above, Charlie could also resume his role as a fielder in another position besides F1. Nothing special about returning to the mound. The 1-player DH is more correctly described as F/DH (even when the 'F' is F1). 

[maven]

3 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

This seems ..... not right to me.  I see what they're trying to say, but I disagree with it.  That's two re-entries, to me, making it an illegal substitution.  I get having another person pitch, leaving Charlie to hit, but that #5 being called "legal" .... nope.  Am I missing something?

I suggest thinking of it this way: the old DH rule allows teams to disentangle the defensive and offensive roles ordinarily occupied by a single player in the lineup. It does that by allowing 2 different players to occupy 1 lineup spot, one in each role, until one of them does the other's job.

The new P/DH rule allows that disentangling to occur mid-game, after a single player had occupied both roles to start the game. It's like adding a DH in a later inning: suddenly, the sub can come in just on defense. The starter who had done both is now only on offense, still in the game, as the DH. When he bats, it's not re-entry, because he was never out, just relegated to offense alone.

[HokieUmp]

On 1/31/2020 at 5:03 PM, maven said:

I suggest thinking of it this way: the old DH rule allows teams to disentangle the defensive and offensive roles ordinarily occupied by a single player in the lineup. It does that by allowing 2 different players to occupy 1 lineup spot, one in each role, until one of them does the other's job.

The new P/DH rule allows that disentangling to occur mid-game, after a single player had occupied both roles to start the game. It's like adding a DH in a later inning: suddenly, the sub can come in just on defense. The starter who had done both is now only on offense, still in the game, as the DH. When he bats, it's not re-entry, because he was never out, just relegated to offense alone.

I've read this post responding to me, and the other one, addressing this.  I know that you are Maven, King Of The Rulebook, and I fear you appropriately.

But I still struggle with this response.  I get the issue is to "untangle" roles.  And allegedly this "improves participation" or whatever.  And from the other post, I get what you're saying that the defensive position on the field isn't really the issue.  But here's my problem:  regardless of defensive position, P or otherwise, Charlie is taken off the field and put back on TWICE as this plays out.  And that's ALWAYS been "illegal substitution," for the time I've done HS baseball.  I get that Charlie can stay and bat in that spot in the order, but I still feel like that 2nd re-insertion onto defense is illegal.  If the roles are supposed to be considered separately elsewhere in this rule implementation, how does his continued batting "carry him" on the 2nd re-entry?

Per this ruling, it's not, I guess, but I don't think I can print this scenario and carry to every game, so that if/when a coach loses his [redacted] at me/us, I can use it like a shield from his wrath.  If you don't want to address it again, because "that guy just doesn't get it," I understand.  I *don't*.

[maven]

10 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

But here's my problem:  regardless of defensive position, P or otherwise, Charlie is taken off the field and put back on TWICE as this plays out.  And that's ALWAYS been "illegal substitution," for the time I've done HS baseball.  I get that Charlie can stay and bat in that spot in the order, but I still feel like that 2nd re-insertion onto defense is illegal. 

I think the issue is self-inflicted: you aren't accepting the new rule's reconceiving of the DH role. The new DH starts on both offense and defense: first inning, he'll have to play both halves of the inning. After that, he's in the game on offense until the DH role is terminated by a sub playing offense.

Under the new rule, the defensive role is much freer. The DH can do it, or a sub can do it. Substitution rules still apply: need a legal sub, once he's out of the game he's done. The DH, still in the game at that lineup spot, can always resume the defensive role.

That's not re-entry: by rule, the DH is still in the game. And that has always been the rule: the old DH (2-player) has 2 starters in one lineup spot, each with re-entry. The fielder using his re-entry does not deprive the DH of his. But maybe you're thinking of re-entry attaching to the role rather than to the player, so when the (new, 1-player) DH resumes play on defense, that's a kind of re-entry? Yeah, don't do that: re-entry goes with the player, not the role.

As for communicating with coaches: first, any coach who loses his mind over anything is giving up his privilege to remain on the field. He's entitled to disagree with us about anything, but must do so respectfully. If he can't manage that, then I'll respectfully eject him. And I don't particularly care whether I convince him with my ruling. I'm the umpire. I do my level best to be up to date and right. Play ball.

[Richvee]

Sorry, but FED seems to be double talking here. 
You can’t CR for a P or C/ DH, because when he bats, he is not a pitcher or catcher, but a DH. Essentially they’re telling us he 2 separate players. 
 

Now they say he’s virtually allowed in and out on defense as often as he wishes because he remained in the  game all the while  as the DH, so he never really left the game and coming in and out numerous times on defense doesn’t qualify as re- entry. So in this case, he is indeed ONE player. 
 

I don't think you can logically have it both ways. 
 

They seem to be MSU as they go.  

However, just like some other FED interps I’m not fond of, I’m there to apply the rules, not make them.

[maven]

9 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Sorry, but FED seems to be double talking here. 
You can’t CR for a P or C/ DH, because when he bats, he is not a pitcher or catcher, but a DH. Essentially they’re telling us he 2 separate players.

I don't think that's it. Can't CR for the P/DH because that's the cost of the privilege of the P/DH: DH has to play the offensive role himself, or terminate the role.

If anything, it's treating the CR as a "sub" in making the CR terminate the (1-player) DH.

[Richvee]

22 minutes ago, maven said:

If anything, it's treating the CR as a "sub" in making the CR terminate the (1-player) DH

I can buy that. 

[Aging_Arbiter]

Is it just me or......

...........if you have to publish a separate book to explain the new DH rule, wouldn't you think that maybe you have jacked that rule around a little too much?

 

[Biscuit]

9 hours ago, Aging_Arbiter said:

Is it just me or......

...........if you have to publish a separate book to explain the new DH rule, wouldn't you think that maybe you have jacked that rule around a little too much?

 

@The Man in Blue I think you may have a friend! 

[ilyazhito]

If you want to mess around with DHs also fielding, why not adapt the NCAA P/DH rule, and modify it to apply to positions other than pitcher?

[The Man in Blue]

On 2/2/2020 at 11:14 AM, Richvee said:

Sorry, but FED seems to be double talking here. 
You can’t CR for a P or C/ DH, because when he bats, he is not a pitcher or catcher, but a DH. Essentially they’re telling us he 2 separate players. 
 

Now they say he’s virtually allowed in and out on defense as often as he wishes because he remained in the  game all the while  as the DH, so he never really left the game and coming in and out numerous times on defense doesn’t qualify as re- entry. So in this case, he is indeed ONE player. 
 

I don't think you can logically have it both ways. 
 

They seem to be MSU as they go.  

However, just like some other FED interps I’m not fond of, I’m there to apply the rules, not make them.

 

I really believe baseball is trying to replicate softball's DP/Flex which provides more flexibility than the old DH rule.  Rather than doing it though, they are trying to stitch things together and are making a mess of it.

In softball, the DP (think of that as your DH) is the offensive player and the Flex is the defensive player (always listed 10th on the lineup).  The DP may play on defense for any other position player without that player "leaving the game" (because they are still in the batting lineup).  If the DP plays defense for the Flex though, the Flex has left the game and the lineup is reduced from 10 spots to 9.  The lineup can expand back to 10 one time, provided the Flex re-enters in the 10th spot.

Should any substitute enter for the DP or the Flex, those spots remain in the lineup, but it is a substitution subject to re-entry privileges/rules.

Even using this method though, the scenario presented by @lawump does not work, as baseball is trying to have the DH/PP (position player) simultaneously be separate (no CR, separate lineup spots) and the same.  

 

[jjskitours]

On 2/2/2020 at 12:14 PM, Richvee said:

Sorry, but FED seems to be double talking here. 
You can’t CR for a P or C/ DH, because when he bats, he is not a pitcher or catcher, but a DH. Essentially they’re telling us he 2 separate players. 
 

Now they say he’s virtually allowed in and out on defense as often as he wishes because he remained in the  game all the while  as the DH, so he never really left the game and coming in and out numerous times on defense doesn’t qualify as re- entry. So in this case, he is indeed ONE player. 
 

I don't think you can logically have it both ways. 
 

They seem to be MSU as they go.  

However, just like some other FED interps I’m not fond of, I’m there to apply the rules, not make them.

NF Rule 3-1-4b clearly states that the original F/DH after being substituted for on defense may reenter only ONE time

[maven]

7 hours ago, jjskitours said:

NF Rule 3-1-4b clearly states that the original F/DH after being substituted for on defense may reenter only ONE time

So it does. That's easy. And it is treated as re-entry. 

Quote

3-1-4b: The starting designated hitter may be any one of the starting defensive players. In this manner, the starting defensive player has two positions: the defensive player and the designated hitter. The role of the defensive player may be substituted for by any legal substitute. If the defensive player has been substituted for, the original player/DH may re-enter one time.

[Aging_Arbiter]

19 hours ago, ilyazhito said:

If you want to mess around with DHs also fielding, why not adapt the NCAA P/DH rule, and modify it to apply to positions other than pitcher?

why not just play under one rule set..........OBR ?!?!? 

[lawump]

My level of frustration at what was supposed to be a simple new rule ("this is not the softball flex rule!") is very high.  That's all I'll say.  

I didn't write this rule; I didn't write the case plays; I don't make the interpretations that have come out so far.  Hell, I'm not even on the committee anymore.  

[maven]

48 minutes ago, lawump said:

I didn't write this rule; I didn't write the case plays; I don't make the interpretations that have come out so far.  Hell, I'm not even on the committee anymore.  

But you're still a lawyer, so there's that.  

[Richvee]

So basically, NFHS came out with an interp that directly contradicts a rather straight forward easy to understand  part of rule 3-1-4b.            

[Biscuit]

On 2/4/2020 at 4:40 PM, Richvee said:

So basically, NFHS came out with an interp that directly contradicts a rather straight forward easy to understand  part of rule 3-1-4b.            

Hey, at least they're staying true to themselves!