DP Flex violation Oregon- Kentucky game

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Don't believe the NCAA has "bench restrictions"

Or warnings for throwing the bat...

Actually, I just caught a small glimpse of the bat warning issue. Not sure exactly what happened there???

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Or warnings for throwing the bat...

Actually, I just caught a small glimpse of the bat warning issue. Not sure exactly what happened there???

38:30 minute mark in the video, is the start of the at bat.

There is a (team) warning, but no ejection (as the announcers said, quoting Oregon coach who said the umpire told him):

11.20.5.3 Is thrown into fair or foul territory, whether intentional or not, and it endangers an umpire or a defensive player who is not making a play on the ball; interference shall be called.

EFFECT—Delayed dead ball is signaled. For a first violation, the offending team is warned. For any subsequent violation by the same team, the offended coach is given the option of either the results of the play or the batter being declared out and base runners shall return to the last base occupied at the time of the pitch. If, in the umpire’s judgment, interference prevented a double play, two outs may be declared.

PU gave the warning, and Oregon coach wasn't happy. Then the same batter lost the bat but didn't hit anyone. The announcers are clueless, from "you can't give a warning for losing the bat" to "I didn't know there was a warning" to "it wasn't intentional" to "it must be when the hit the umpire only".

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

38:30 minute mark in the video, is the start of the at bat.

There is a (team) warning, but no ejection (as the announcers said, quoting Oregon coach who said the umpire told him):

11.20.5.3 Is thrown into fair or foul territory, whether intentional or not, and it endangers an umpire or a defensive player who is not making a play on the ball; interference shall be called.

EFFECT—Delayed dead ball is signaled. For a first violation, the offending team is warned. For any subsequent violation by the same team, the offended coach is given the option of either the results of the play or the batter being declared out and base runners shall return to the last base occupied at the time of the pitch. If, in the umpire’s judgment, interference prevented a double play, two outs may be declared.

PU gave the warning, and Oregon coach wasn't happy. Then the same batter lost the bat but didn't hit anyone. The announcers are clueless, from "you can't give a warning for losing the bat" to "I didn't know there was a warning" to "it wasn't intentional" to "it must be when the hit the umpire only".

I usually pride myself on my rules knowledge, but I would have missed this correct application of 11.20.5.3. In fact, I can think of a few instances this season where I should have issued a warning after I dodged a bat. Back to the book for me again!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

11.20.5.3 Is thrown into fair or foul territory, whether intentional or not, and it endangers an umpire or a defensive player who is not making a play on the ball; interference shall be called.

That makes zero sense. With whom and what play did the bat interfere?

[Big Slick]

Thinking about the substitution play a little bit more, was there a second illegal substitution violation?

When the original flex (I called her #10 above) re-entered the game to hit for the DP, this removed S1 from game. When S1 returned to pitch, she became an illegal substitution that was challenged successfully. #10 (the original flex) came out to pitch and the game continued.

But here is my question: did #10 leave the game once S1 "re-entered" illegally? Remember that #10 left the line up at the start of the game when the DP played defense. When S1 returned to pitch in the 6th, did that count as a second sub for #10 (the first substitution for #10 occurred in the third inning)? If so, she would not be eligible to pitch.

I don't know the answer, but I think #10 should not have been allowed back into the game. There isn't a direct answer in the rule book (8.4.3) or case book; the question is raised in AR 8-17 ("Second, if #4 became an illegal substitute when she took warmup throws at first base, does her illegal re-entry result in #1 being out of the game?") but isn't answered.

Thoughts?

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

(snip) Thoughts?

No: a player can only leave the game "legally" by being properly substituted for.. If an illegal or improper substitution is made, only the illegal participant can be penalized. #10 was still the legal player, even though she wasn't pitching (or was available as a legal sub to fill to spot left by the illegal particpant). Tomato, tomahto.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by teebob21

No: a player can only leave the game "legally" by being properly substituted for.. If an illegal or improper substitution is made, only the illegal participant can be penalized. #10 was still the legal player, even though she wasn't pitching (or was available as a legal sub to fill to spot left by the illegal particpant). Tomato, tomahto.

Interesting theory, but what rule would you cite in a protest?

Upon further inspection of the rules (and one I missed when I typed last night). Follow this logic:

8.3.3 is Unreported/misreported players. This section appears first in the rule book, therefore we should apply this rule first. S1 was "unreported", and specifically 8.3.3.5.1 applies (on defense, had made a play, but before the next pitch).

All of the Effects for rule 8.3.3 - 7 in total - all mention "The unreported/misreported player is declared officially in the game"

Therefore, S1 should have been declared officially in the game. S1 in, #10 out (for someone to enter, someone has to leave).

Now look at the notes following 8.3.3, specifically Note1:

If an unreported/misreported player is also an illegal player, the penalty for an illegal player applies.

Then she was determined to be illegal (an illegal player is a subset of unreported/misreported player); now apply the extra penalty of the administrative ejection (the other penalty of nullifying the play is the same).

Bottomline, I think #10 coming back in to pitch should not have been allowed because she did not have re-entry.

I would have really liked to have seen a protest by Oregon. It would have changed the game as UK did not have any other pitcher ready to pitch.

[Colo Blue]

Big Slick, your posts are excellent in explaining the DP-Flex. I did not see this game, but the only thing I can guess is that the coach did not ask for the re-entry of S1 and somehow the player just went out to pitch not knowing what was going on, or the umpire allowed it when he took the change. Even if the umpire allowed it, the coach is responsible and needs to accept that. I personally will not allow the coaches to make an illegal substitution, but I have worked with partners that do. I will explain to the coaches that they cannot make it and why. When I do accept their changes I always tell them when a player is done for the game. A lot of college coaches act like I must think they are stupid, but a lot just say thank you. I do this to keep us all on the same page. Once I worked with a partner during a college game, and every time the coach made a substitution to the DP or Flex he had to call me in to make sure it was legal. That was frustrating! Other than that he was a good umpire. He just said he gets really anxious dealing with the DP-Flex and hates the rule.

[derwil]

Originally Posted by Colo Blue

Big Slick, your posts are excellent in explaining the DP-Flex.

+1. Nice post Slick. I turned the game on in the 7th and the announcers were talking about it...had no idea what went on.