Babe Ruth Unreported substitute

[PABlue]

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by PABlue

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.

[PABlue]

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

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by PABlue

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by PABlue

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

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?

[PABlue]

Because the umpire is old and senile today! 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. Sorry guys I'll get it together.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PABlue

2. Ball falls out of fielders glove on pop fly when he hits the ground.( He held that long enough.)

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."

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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."

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

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.

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

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.

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