ASA February Clarifications

[AtlUmpSteve]

I don't speak for Mike; he can certainly speak for himself.

Assuming I know what he's saying, I absolutely agree. I think it is absurd to have no penalty for a team not reporting substitutions. There are now teams that make NOT reporting subs a team strategy; if not brought to plate umpire's attention (and many teams do not bother, since there is no penalty), they have multiple re-entries, and subs playing in more than one position for more than one starter. And nothing can been done to keep it legal, because there is no record of a prior participation.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I don't speak for Mike; he can certainly speak for himself.

Assuming I know what he's saying, I absolutely agree. I think it is absurd to have no penalty for a team not reporting substitutions. There are now teams that make NOT reporting subs a team strategy; if not brought to plate umpire's attention (and many teams do not bother, since there is no penalty), they have multiple re-entries, and subs playing in more than one position for more than one starter. And nothing can been done to keep it legal, because there is no record of a prior participation.

And I blame the opposing team for not saying something the first time it happens. They set themselves up for ignoring the violation just because there is no real penalty.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I don't speak for Mike; he can certainly speak for himself.

Assuming I know what he's saying, I absolutely agree. I think it is absurd to have no penalty for a team not reporting substitutions. There are now teams that make NOT reporting subs a team strategy; if not brought to plate umpire's attention (and many teams do not bother, since there is no penalty), they have multiple re-entries, and subs playing in more than one position for more than one starter. And nothing can been done to keep it legal, because there is no record of a prior participation.

Steve is correct, this is exactly to what I was alluding. When this change in the rules occurred, it was simply a dummying down to help relieve the coaches/managers of the responsibility of thinking and playing the game fairly. I'm just trying to figure out just how the game survived for over 75 years of the rules in place that required a little brain power on behalf of the teams.

[josephrt1]

So along those lines I have 3 notes in my book on section 4.6.C:

There are 3 different terms used in 4.6:
1. Is discovered
2. Is brought to the attention of the umpire
3. Is protested
Do they all mean the same thing. To be “protested” and “brought to the attention” require someone else to notify the ump. But “is discovered” is vague. If I as the ump detect the change, is that “discovered”?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

So along those lines I have 3 notes in my book on section 4.6.C:

There are 3 different terms used in 4.6:
1. Is discovered
2. Is brought to the attention of the umpire
3. Is protested
Do they all mean the same thing. To be “protested” and “brought to the attention” require someone else to notify the ump. But “is discovered” is vague. If I as the ump detect the change, is that “discovered”?

Accurate answer; yes, if you detect it, it has been discovered.

Real world answer; detecting it when you can use preventative officiating, do it. Afterwards, if there is a possible advantage/disadvantage to either team as a result of you "discovering", well, I would simply continue to not notice, and put the onus on the opposing team to bring to my attention and protest.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Accurate answer; yes, if you detect it, it has been discovered.

Real world answer; detecting it when you can use preventative officiating, do it.

Hmmm, interesting thought. Would you provide an example of when the umpire can use preventative officiating to prevent an unreported substitute pitcher from pitching without the situation being fixed?

If I notice a new pitcher warming up between innings, I will go up to her coach and ask, "Who's the new pitcher?" But I've also been told I have no business checking with the coach, because I'm essentially negating the opposing team's opportunity to take advantage of a violation. Which is the correct action?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Hmmm, interesting thought. Would you provide an example of when the umpire can use preventative officiating to prevent an unreported substitute pitcher from pitching without the situation being fixed?

If I notice a new pitcher warming up between innings, I will go up to her coach and ask, "Who's the new pitcher?" But I've also been told I have no business checking with the coach, because I'm essentially negating the opposing team's opportunity to take advantage of a violation. Which is the correct action?

When I "observe" someone new walking out, or an obvious reentry, and especially during a changeover half inning, I most often pull out my lineup card and pen, open the lineup card, and meaningfully wait for a coach that I just KNOW is just waiting to report it to me but having a different conversation. About 90% of the time, that expedites what is otherwise an avoidable delay, and preventative, as well, without actually telling the coach to report it. If the coach doesn't take the hint, I put it all away when the catcher throws down, and let the chips fall as they may.

If a "friendly" team, if/when it finally reported by either team, I might suggest to my catcher (the one player on each team I always want on my side) that she "remind" her coach about re-entry when she's on her way out. My experience is that is one position that has a prevailing number of runners and then re-entry (followed by DP, F3, F5 in quantity), as well as a team leader.

Interestingly (and I know I was the one saying this isn't an NCAA thread, BUT), the experimental 90 second rule would remove any such delay, since substitutions must be made at the beginning of the 90 seconds; if not, the offending team must wait one complete batter to make (or assumably report) a legal substitution.

As to what you've been told, I would only suggest that "never", "always", and "not your business" are blanket statements that shouldn't "always" apply. Look at where you are, what you are doing, and judge what is appropriate accordingly. "Never" and "always" are words used most often by those that lack the ability to make that judgment, or else presume that you lack that ability.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Hmmm, interesting thought. Would you provide an example of when the umpire can use preventative officiating to prevent an unreported substitute pitcher from pitching without the situation being fixed?

If I notice a new pitcher warming up between innings, I will go up to her coach and ask, "Who's the new pitcher?" But I've also been told I have no business checking with the coach, because I'm essentially negating the opposing team's opportunity to take advantage of a violation. Which is the correct action?

I'm with Steve. Pull the line-up card and take a look toward the coach.That was often enough to ignite that light bulb above his/her head and report the change. Of course, this was more effective before the umpires were moved off the lines between innings

[Manny A]

Let me ask a related question. Since the pitch is not considered a play for unreported substitution purposes, would the catcher be treated the same way as the pitcher?

For example, a new, unreported substitute comes in to catch. She receives a number of pitches, including a swing and miss third strike on the second batter of the inning. If the offense protests at that point that the catcher was unreported, is the third strike pitch caught by the catcher (which results in a Put Out being recorded for the catcher in the official score book) considered a Play that would allow the offense to have the option of the of re-doing the pitch? Would it be any different if the third strike was actually a foul tip that the catcher caught?