Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CelticNHBlue
How would you respond to a coach who came to you in a situation immediately following the play (before the next pitch) and said to you, "Blue, #17 just batted, but I have #19 on my lineup?"
This coach has not appealed anything to you. You will review the lineup, and may discover BOO, unreported sub, or an inaccurate lineup card. Would you acknowledge the coach with, "That is correct coach" and await a specific appeal, or would you determine the violation and assess the appropriate penalty? If the latter, wouldn't that be considered "filling in" (as you put it) the appeal to cover all appealable violations?
|
I think it's obvious in this case that he's appealing the fact that 17 just batted and 19 should have. We don't have to wait until he actually says the word "appeal". My sitch was different. I had 2 distinct (linked, obviously, in some way... but distinct) infractions. First was #9 batting instead of #6. Then #6 batted instead of #1. ALL of the coach's complaints/concerns were along these lines, "#9 should be out," "That home run doesn't count," etc ... and ALL of the complaints/concerns happened after #6 had taken a pitch. He even asked me what he should have done to get an out on number 9, at which point I explained (more than he asked... but what I thought he meant) that if he'd appealed on #9 BEFORE the pitch to #6, #6 would have been out and the homerun erased, with #9 coming back to the plate to bat after #6.
I truly felt (and still feel) that reminding him that #1 was supposed to be up instead of #6 was outside the realm of what he was complaining about. In fact, after explaining what I said above, I FULLY expected that he would come back out after #6 batted to get an out on #1 for not batting - but he didn't.
Quote:
|
I agree with Mike in the sense that this coach has recognized something is wrong with the order in which players have/are batting and, just because s/he did not ask the specific question regarding the exact player, they have made the determination that something is wrong, and I would correct it, at that time.
|
I disagree - for two reasons. One - he was not concerned at all with #6 being at the plate - he was concerned with #9. Two - I feel that "fixing it" by bringing #1 to the plate deprived HIM from an opportunity for an out if defense refused to fix it on their own. And it isn't my job to protect the defense from a future infraction.