[teebob21]

Like most "complicated" case plays and test questions, this is written poorly. While it makes sense in the context of a clarification to say "the defensive coach calls time to protest the unreported sub", that's not how it works in the real world. As umpires, we don't know if the coach is calling time to swap pitchers, yell at his shortstop for being out of position, or come chew on us for having such a terrible strike zone. We can't assume anything until it happens.

The clarification IS correct in my opinion: whoever says it to me first, wins. This has rule support.

An example from an NCAA game last year: Home team subs in a new batter with 2 outs, unreported. This player strikes out and then goes and plays F3. Two outs are made in the top of the inning at 1B against the visitors. I am waiting for the visiting head coach to appeal the sub...never happens.The third out of the inning is a pop-up to the pitcher. The visiting head coach comes up to me between innings and asks: "What do we do about that unreported sub? Don't I have the option to nullify the play?"

I had to say "Coach, you've made me aware of an unreported substitute. Since a pitch has been thrown after she made a play, I can't nullify it. She is now legally in the game - I will clarify the sub with the home team and report to your book."

All he wanted to do was ask about the rule, but in doing so, he notified me that he was aware of an unreported sub. At that moment, I have to enforce the rule as written for that situation. If I had simply answered him, it would have given him the advantage to appeal it (again) when it was most beneficial.

Edit to add: The clarification that I DON'T like is #3. An unreported F1 throws a pitch, resulting in an out. The offense properly protests the unreported sub, but the clarification is that the act of pitching does not equal making a play. I disagree, but them's the breaks.