OK, but how is that equitable? Why should a team with a two-way player be given an advantage over a team without one? What's to prevent a team from pitching the same non-pitcher enough times to give him two-way status, thereby exempting him from this rule? What about a first-year player who is a two-way player? Would he have to pitch enough innings in his rookie season before he can be designated a two-way player? Or could he be designated as such right from the start? And, if so, wouldn't it be favorable for a team to do so for every player? Would those innings have to be in blowout situations only? What if there are not enough of those opportunities to enable the player to accrue enough innings? It sounds like it could be a Catch-22--you can't become a two-way player unless you have played two ways, and you can't play two ways unless you have become a two-way player.
Too much confusion over a solution in search of a problem. I think it would have been much more fair and simple not to have instituted this rule. Just let managers manage.