Illegal Courtesy Runner But Legal Substitute!!!

[Gre144]

FED Rules

I. Today, the coach used a courtesy runner for the second baseman. The defensive coach brings this point up to me. I did not enforce the rule for illegal substitution because the offensive coach actually used a legal substitute but he called him in as a courtesy runner. In short, the coach says, "Courtesy runner Blue" . Defense discovers that the courtesy runner is for the second basemen. I explain that even though the coach called him in as a courtesy runner, he was a legal substitute because he was coming off the bench and had not played in the game. No arguments and everyone was happy. But did I make the right call or should have I called him out and ejected him for being an illegal courtesy runner?

II. After reviewing the penalties for illegal substitution there were some circumstances that I thought of that I do not know how to resolve.

2A) For example, let's assume that an illegal substitute hits a grounder and gets thrown out out first. Discovery is made before the next pitch. Would there be two outs? (one for the out on the play and one for the out for being an illegal substitute); Or one out in which the out for being an illegal substitute supersedes an out on the illegal substitute on the play?(one out as is the case for an improper batter 7-1-2-exception)

2B) If an illegal substitute for B4 is at bat and the discovery is made immediately is he replaced by: B4 or a legal substitute for B4?; or is he replaced by B5?

2C) Illegal Substitute S1 who replaces B4 hits a single. Discovery is made before the next legal pitch. Would B4 be the next proper batter or B5?

2D) B4 hits a triple but bats out of order. Discovery is made before the next legal pitch but the batter who is up next is an illegal substitute who is in the batter's box(no pitch has been thrown). Usually, in B4's case, the proper batter would be declared out and all runners would be returned to their base at the time of the pitch. But according to 3-1-1-1 the penalty for illegal substitution shall supersede the penalty for batting out of order. So does this mean that you call the illegal substitute out, eject him and let the hit stand for the improper batter B4 since the penalty for illegal substitution supersedes the penalty for batting out of order?

Thanks,

Greg

Fed Rules Please

[Edited by Gre144 on Apr 6th, 2001 at 12:46 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Gre144
FED Rules

I. Today, the coach used a courtesy runner for the second baseman. The defensive coach brings this point up to me. I did not enforce the rule for illegal substitution because the offensive coach actually used a legal substitute but he called him in as a courtesy runner. In short, the coach says, "Courtesy runner Blue" . Defense discovers that the courtesy runner is for the second basemen. I explain that even though the coach called him in as a courtesy runner, he was a legal substitute because he was coming off the bench and had not played in the game. No arguments and everyone was happy. But did I make the right call or should have I called him out and ejected him for being an illegal courtesy runner?

What you should have done is not allow the "CR" for F4. "Coach, you can only CR for F1 or F2." or, "Coach, you mean a sub, not a CR, right?"

II. After reviewing the penalties for illegal substitution there were some circumstances that I thought of that I do not know how to resolve.

2A) For example, let's assume that an illegal substitute hits a grounder and gets thrown out out first. Discovery is made before the next pitch. Would there be two outs? (one for the out on the play and one for the out for being an illegal substitute); Or one out in which the out for being an illegal substitute supersedes an out on the illegal substitute on the play?(one out as is the case for an improper batter 7-1-2-exception)

Only one out. The illegal sub is still ejected. Other runners (if any) return.

2B) If an illegal substitute for B4 is at bat and the discovery is made immediately is he replaced by: B4 or a legal substitute for B4?; or is he replaced by B5?

The illegal sub is out and ejected. B5 is now the batter (just as if the illegal sub had made an out). B4 can reenter the game, if he has reentry privveliges.

2C) Illegal Substitute S1 who replaces B4 hits a single. Discovery is made before the next legal pitch. Would B4 be the next proper batter or B5?

The illegal sub is out and ejected. B5 is now the batter (just as if the illegal sub had made an out). B4 can reenter the game, if he has reentry privveliges.

2D) B4 hits a triple but bats out of order. Discovery is made before the next legal pitch but the batter who is up next is an illegal substitute who is in the batter's box(no pitch has been thrown). Usually, in B4's case, the proper batter would be declared out and all runners would be returned to their base at the time of the pitch. But according to 3-1-1-1 the penalty for illegal substitution shall supersede the penalty for batting out of order. So does this mean that you call the illegal substitute out, eject him and let the hit stand for the improper batter B4 since the penalty for illegal substitution supersedes the penalty for batting out of order?

No. The "penalty for illegal sub suprecedes penalty for BOO" is meant to apply only if the illegal sub is the one batting out of order.

This particular play is not covered, IMHO, in the rules or case book. I'd enforce whatever error was discovered first -- in this instance, the BOO. So, B4 is removed from the bases, whoever was supposed to bat is out, the next batter is due up. If the illegal sub now appears in the box, another out can be declared.

[Gre144]

Bob, isn't an illegal substitute batting out of order 100% of the time? Also, is it the umpires job to prevent an illegal substitute or player batting out of order from entering or is this the coaches job? Theoretically, if we say, "You are the wrong batter-the correct batter please come up," or "You can't courtesy run for the second baseman only for the catcher or the pitcher", than what is the purpose of having rules for batting out of order or an illegal substitution? If our job is to prevent these situations from happening then there will never be an instance of an illegal substitution or batting out of order.

Thanks,

Greg

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Gre144
Bob, isn't an illegal substitute batting out of order 100% of the time?

No.

Also, is it the umpires job to prevent an illegal substitute or player batting out of order from entering or is this the coaches job?

On illegal substitutions, it's good preventive officiating. Time is out when the sub is made, so it can be checked.

Note that illegal subs may be detected by "an umpire or either team", while BOO may only be detected by "either team" (and defense only after the at bat is over).

[Gre144]

I think I see your point on this but I'm not sure. Are you saying that even though the illegal batter hits a single he could theoretically be batting out of order because he substituted for a player that would have been batting out of order? In other words, in order for an illegal substitute to also be batting out of order, he must be batting for someone who would have been batting out of order if there would not have been an illegal substitution in the first place.

My point was that an illegal substitute could never be batting in the proper order because he can't be legally in the game. My thinking was the following: If he has no legal right to be in the game but he enters anyways, what proper order in the line up can he legally bat?

In short, I am not disputing your answer. I am just pointing out that if we assume that an illegal player can also bat of order he must be the legal illegal substitute for the person who would be batting out of order if there was no substitution in the first place.

[Edited by Gre144 on Apr 7th, 2001 at 09:41 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Gre144
I think I see your point on this but I'm not sure. Are you saying that even though the illegal batter hits a single he could theoretically be batting out of order because he substituted for a player that would have been batting out of order? In other words, in order for an illegal substitute to also be batting out of order, he must be batting for someone who would have been batting out of order if there would not have been an illegal substitution in the first place.

My point was that an illegal substitute could never be batting in the proper order because he can't be legally in the game. My thinking was the following: If he has no legal right to be in the game but he enters anyways, what proper order in the line up can he legally bat?

In short, I am not disputing your answer. I am just pointing out that if we assume that an illegal player can also bat of order he must be the legal illegal substitute for the person who would be batting out of order if there was no substitution in the first place.

[Edited by Gre144 on Apr 7th, 2001 at 09:41 AM]

Play: in the second inning S1 pinch hits for P1. P1 reenters on defense. In the fourth inning (a) S1 pinch hits for P1 again, or (b) pinch hits for P2. Ruling: In both cases, S1 is an illegal sub. In (a) it's not also BOO; in (b) it is. Since the penalties for illegal sub supercede those for BOO and might be different (depending on the play, time of discovery, etc.), it's important to know which to apply in case (b).

[Thom Coste]

2D) B4 hits a triple but bats out of order. Discovery is made before the next legal pitch but the batter who is up next is an illegal substitute who is in the batter's box(no pitch has been thrown). Usually, in B4's case, the proper batter would be declared out and all runners would be returned to their base at the time of the pitch. But according to 3-1-1-1 the penalty for illegal substitution shall supersede the penalty for batting out of order. So does this mean that you call the illegal substitute out, eject him and let the hit stand for the improper batter B4 since the penalty for illegal substitution supersedes the penalty for batting out of order?

No. The "penalty for illegal sub suprecedes penalty for BOO" is meant to apply only if the illegal sub is the one batting out of order.

This particular play is not covered, IMHO, in the rules or case book. I'd enforce whatever error was discovered first -- in this instance, the BOO. So, B4 is removed from the bases, whoever was supposed to bat is out, the next batter is due up. If the illegal sub now appears in the box, another out can be declared.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Assuming the ball was, or became, live while the illegal sub was in the batter's box, I think you can get both regardless of the order of discovery. That is, the BOO would not be cancelled by the mere appearance and/or discovery of the illegal player, nor would the illegal substitution be negated by the enforcement of the BOO. The violations are exclusive of each other.

[Gre144]

Bob,if illegal subtitute P1 is batting out of order and hits a single and discovery is made before the next pitch, are you saying that the batter that follows the person that P1 substituted for would always be the next batter? If this is the case,then the offense is gaining an unfair advantage.
For example,they could put the illegal substitue in for the ninth batter so that the first batter in the line up card
will be the next one to be up. I would think it would make more sense to enforce the BOO rule for illegal substitutes batting out of order after making a hit so that the proper batter is out and the next batter to be the person who would have followed the proper batter. Could the only difference between the BOO Rule and the illegal substitution rule, after the illegal substitute hits the ball and discovery being made before the next legal pitch, be that the illegal substitute would be ejected? In other words, could
supersede mean that we eject the illegal batter also- not just enforce the BOO?

Assume that two discoveries are made before the next legal pitch.The first one being that he batted out of order and the second one being that he is an illegal substitute. The question is the following:

Assume that the
llegal substitute P1 batted for the fifth person in the line up before he became illegal- but now is
batting for the ninth batter. When he hits his single,
who is the next batter, assuming that the the fifth person in the line up was the proper batter? Would it be:

A) The first batter in the lineup since the illegal substitute was batting for the ninth batter illegally.

B)The 6th batter since the proper batter was the 5th batter.

If B is the answer then we be the following: When an illegal substitute bats out of order, what is the difference between the penalty for illegal substitution and for BOO, assuming that the illegal substitute hits a single and discovery is made before the the next pitch?

I think the answer would be that we are enforcing the B00 rule for illegal substitutes batting out of order except that the illegal substitute would also be ejected.

I guess the real question is whether the penalty for BOO for a legal substitute and an illegal substitute are exactly the same except that in the former, the illegal substitute is ejected. Am I right?

Thanks

Greg

[Edited by Gre144 on Apr 8th, 2001 at 06:49 PM]

[Gre144]

I guess what I am trying to ask is the following: What would be the difference for the penalty for an illegal substitute batting in order and an illegal substitute batting out of order, assuming that discovery is made before the next legal pitch?

And I just thought of a situation that may apply to the section 3-1-1-1 that says the rules for illegal substitution supersede the rules for batting out of order.

Assume the following:

P1 who is an illegal substitute is on first base. B1 who is BOO hits a single. Discovery is made before the next legal pitch. What would you do and would you call one or two outs on the play?


Greg

[Edited by Gre144 on Apr 9th, 2001 at 11:50 AM]

[bob jenkins]

The differences (and, these are all parts of the "penalty"):

1) After the at-bat is completed, illegal sub can be detected by the umpire or either team. BOO can only be detected by defense.

2) At the end of an inning, BOO can only be detected until the infielders have crossed the foul lines. Illegal sub can be detected until the first pitch of the next half-inning (rule on last inning is same as BOO).

3) The player for whom the illegal sub reported is out of the game (and can only reenter if he has reentry privelidges). The player who didn't bat in the BOO situation is not out of the game.

4) The penalty for illegal substitution includes ejection. The penalty for BOO doesn't.

You're reading way too much into this and making it more complicated than it needs to be, Greg.