Babe Ruth Unreported substitute
 

:o All right please don't crucify me if this is to obvious but I've been back and forth through my rule book and must be missing this. I also tried the search function but couldn't find a post that had to do with situation for OBR rules. In Babe Ruth ball that uses OBR rules where and what is the ruling on a unreported substitute that is in the middle of a at bat situation.

The rule is 3.08. Doesn't matter when.

Rich I should have been more clear in my first post,I forgot to add that I needed what penalty if any is there. I had found the rule just not if there was a penalty. I didn't want to make a mistake by saying it's not in the book ( that I could find) so there must not be a penalty. Thanks

There is no penalty for an unreported [as opposed to illegal - different critter] substitute in any level of BASEball I've ever heard of: that [penalty for not reporting] is [I believe- I don't do SB] a SOFTball rule.

3.08(b) (b) Any play made by, or on, any of the above mentioned unannounced substitutes shall be legal.

3.03 A player, or players, may be substituted during a game at any time the ball is dead.


Why would anyone think there should be a penalty?

Because the umpire is old and senile today!:eek: Also he doesn't seem to be reading to clearly or else he would have seen the above ruling . Lets blame it on lack of sleep and stupidty of this week.Here is a list of things I have heard or seen this week.
1. Unreported substitute called out when lady keeping the book tried to tell the home team the batter was a new player. ( Bases were loaded with 2 outs)
2. Ball falls out of fielders glove on pop fly when he hits the ground.( He held that long enough.)
3. Coaches not knowing when IFF was in effect.
4. Other coaches not wanting runners to be able to advance on a dropped IFF.
5. Hands are part of the bat.( Again)
6. Fielders standing on bag without the ball( That's obstuction coach.What's that?)
7. Runner out for not sliding even if play not being made.
8. OK to run over catcher if he's in the baseline.( Cal Ripken Ball)
9. Runner has to return to the base before picher has the ball.(CRB)
10. Coach wants a tag to be made on runner who left early on a fly ball when he is trying to return instead of just touching the base.
That has been my week so the stupidness must be catching up with me to.:eek: Sorry guys I'll get it together.

What did the umpire call? The correct call would be "No Catch." It doesn't matter "long enough." Long enough for what? If the player ran 20 feet with the ball, tripped and fell, and the ball falls out of his glove, it's "No Catch." He must show a voluntary release to be counted as a "Catch."

Sounds like he called it a catch.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week... and cdump was pretty active, so that's saying a lot.

And what is so stupid about it? If a player catches the ball, and then runs into the wall, collides with a player, or falls down, and drops the ball, it's NO CATCH. There is no such thing as "held it long enough" without a voluntary release. You show me in the book where it says "held it long enough" without the voluntary release.

If you had said any of that, it would not have been stupid, or even incorrect. What you ACTUALLY said, however, wins the prize. "If the player ran 20 feet with the ball, tripped and fell, and the ball falls out of his glove, it's "No Catch." That's complete nonsense.

Not really. A player covers 20 feet of ground in about 5 or 6 strides, which takes only a few short seconds. If he is running with the ball, and falls down, and drops the ball involuntarily, it ain't a catch. This is considered "immediately following his contact with the ball." I think my original answer is totally backed up by rule 2.00 A CATCH.

If you had reason to believe he didn't have the ball or was stumbling over the entirety of the 20 foot 5-6 stride distance, I could conceive of your ruling coming into play - but not as a rule. Voluntary release is one of the things we can use to determine a catch ... but it is not the ONLY thing, and is not REQUIRED. Let me ask... F9 catches a routine fly, runs toward his dugout, ball still in glove, and trips over the pitcher's mound, dropping the ball upon impact. You putting everyone back on bases now? Of course not. You stated, "There is no such thing as "held it long enough" ", would the CF in my sitch not have held it long enough to be considered a catch.

Again, voluntary release proves possession ... but possession does not require voluntary release - especially when the event causing the involuntary release is not related to the catch attempt at all.

I have a game to work. I'll let the rest of the piranha chew you up on this one. Anyone else out there feel like he's right, please chew me up and explain why. I'll check in tomorrow.

Well, if the fielder is still in the process of gaining control over his body after contacting the ball (and why else would he be running with the ball?), then the play is still going on, I'm sorry to have to correct you, but a voluntary release is required. A voluntary release is one of the things we do use, not can use to determine a catch.

You're absurd analogy of F9 tripping over the pitcher's mound is the stupidest thing I've heard all week. I was speaking of the continuous nature of the play (as in immediately following contact with the ball), not a fielder running in 200 feet after the inning is over and the teams are changing sides. That would be ridiculous. Oh, and BTW, F9 is the RF, not the CF.:p

You tell me what is the difference between running 20 ft. with the ball, and hitting a wall and dropping the ball, and running 20 ft., falling down and dropping the ball. Both are during continuous action of the play, and both require (that's right require) a voluntary release, as well as a judgment that the fielder had the ball long enough. One without the other is not how the rule works.

Here is the exact wording of the rule:

In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.

:D So then tripping over the mound DOES invalidate the catch because it dodn't meet the "and" portion.:D

I see by the smileys that you are joking here, but really. . .as I said, we are talking about continuous action on the play, immediately following contact with the ball. The mound analogy is patently absurd.:rolleyes:

Okay -- he's right. Of course, so are you. the problem is that he's talking about a different play than you are, and either is possible from the post.

Instead of just taking the pot-shot at him, you could have replied with, "you're correct if ..." or "that's not a true statement unless ...." or something.

I agree that there's no "magic distance" that a fielder must run. If he's demonstrated control, then it's a catch if he runs 1 foot. If he hasn't, then it isn't a catch even if he runs 300'.

:eek: Just so you guys know the comment he held that long enough was from the coach.I called no catch.

Per Evans, "Keys for determining a catch: secure possession, firmly holding, dropped while in the act a making throw, held long enough, complete control, and voluntary and intentional release."

You are saying that if an outfielder makes an easy catch, runs 20 feet with ball securely held in his glove, trips on his own feet and falls down and the ball rolls out you are going to rule NO CATCH?

God help me, but I might agree with SDS (somewhat) on a portion of this debate.

There is "running 20 feet" and there is "running 20 feet." Circumstances, as I believe Bob suggested, may make a difference in the call.

Picture this:

F9 is running in at full gallop, snags a fly below his waist and his momentum carries him another 20 feet, about 5 full strides, he falls and when he hits the ground, fully stretched out, the ball pops out of his glove.

Now this:

F9 jogging casually toward the infield makes a fairly routine catch on a high pop up for out 3. He continues his leisurely jog toward his dugout 20', about 6-7 steps, trips, falls and the ball rolls out.

Any difference in calls?

This is the scenario I was describing, not someone jogging casually with the ball long after the catch was made. Sorry I didn't draw a friggin diagram to indicate this, so the slower people could keep up. I thought it was self-explanatory. I should know better on this forum, where every i must be dotted and every t crossed.

You have agreed with me on many things before. I agree with most of what you write. Not as different as you think.

Why would I mean anything other than a continuous action during a play? It is just disturbing that anyone would think differently.

If any of us could read minds we wouldn't have time to spend on this forum for raking in the cash with other endeavors. Your example was poorly worded because you did not say what you meant. Your example: "If the player ran 20 feet with the ball, tripped and fell, and the ball falls out of his glove, it's "No Catch." He must show a voluntary release to be counted as a "Catch.". What are we supposed to think you meant? Your position was clear.

Garth presents one example of running 20 feet that I think most of us would rule NO CATCH, and the other I think most would rule CATCH because he had control of his body, until he tripped on his own feet, which had nothing to do with the catch, and he held it LONG ENOUGH.

It's appropriate for you to be rude and condescending, but it's unbecoming when the same tone is used on you ?

Do as I say, not as I do, I guess ?!?

Didn't think I was being either rude or condescending. Sorry.

I just can't believe that grown men couldn't tell what I meant by my statement.

Even the 98 year old granny in the top row knows that if the play is well overwith, that dropping the ball does not negate a catch. I did not feel that I had to spell that out.

Did anyone catch this post? Should have cleared up my original meaning immediately.

Now I'm being condescending!:)

If I need an out, then it's a catch.

Oh no here we go again!

The original statement was, "2. Ball falls out of fielders glove on pop fly when he hits the ground.( He held that long enough.)", to which you immediately replied that there was no such thing as "long enough". Since my (probably over-attacking) early responses, you've clarified, and I think we're on the same page. But it was your early assertion that there is "no such thing as long enough", when obviously there is (and you have stated you also believe that there is), that drew my disagreement.

It was not "obvious what you meant", if what you meant was that "there's no such thing as long enough" really means ... "if he's still not in control of his body, it's not long enough". We don't have any clue whether this fielder was in control of himself when he tripped.

I do apologize for being too much "on the attack" on that, but hopefully you now understand why I disagreed so vehemently.

Yes, I understand. I did oversimplify, and used a broad sweeping and hasty generalization as well. I can see how my statement could easily have mislead people as to what I was referring.

I just hate being compared to CUMP6!:) That is one category I don't want to lead in. I say enough stupid things, but I didn't think I had reached that "special" level yet.:eek:

Sorry didn't read all the posts.
edit

There are smart people that sometimes say something not-so-smart... I think most of us (self included) land in this category.

Canadacoach6 has invented his own category. I apologize for comparing the two of you in any way! :)