Batting 10 in FP

[Ol Blue]

This happened in an ASA State championship tournament, and I wasn't one of the umpires involved......really.

Top of the sixth inning lead off batter singles, next batter singles now runners on 1B and 2B. Before pitch to the third batter of the inning coach wants to appeal BOO.
This is were things start to go bad. The runner on second the leadoff batter of the inning is the FLEX. DP is in the lineup and had made the last out of the previous inning, also the FLEX had been batting the entire game without anyone noticing. This isn't BOO because the FLEX wasn't batting in any of the first nine positions she was batting 10th IMO. If you did go with BOO then she is ok because a pitch was thrown to the next batter who is now on first and the correct batter is at the plate. I would probably go with illegal batter because the Flex batted while the DP was still in the game, but can this be appealed after a pitch to the next batter?
What happened, the runner at second the FLEX was ruled out and removed from the base. Offensisve coach protests and after a long discussion the UIC ruled FLEX out and put the runner on first on second so we continue with one out R2 on second. So my question is what would you have called here and what rule can you use to justify the UIC ruling?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Ol Blue
This happened in an ASA State championship tournament, and I wasn't one of the umpires involved......really.

Top of the sixth inning lead off batter singles, next batter singles now runners on 1B and 2B. Before pitch to the third batter of the inning coach wants to appeal BOO.
This is were things start to go bad. The runner on second the leadoff batter of the inning is the FLEX. DP is in the lineup and had made the last out of the previous inning, also the FLEX had been batting the entire game without anyone noticing. This isn't BOO because the FLEX wasn't batting in any of the first nine positions she was batting 10th IMO. If you did go with BOO then she is ok because a pitch was thrown to the next batter who is now on first and the correct batter is at the plate. I would probably go with illegal batter because the Flex batted while the DP was still in the game, but can this be appealed after a pitch to the next batter?
What happened, the runner at second the FLEX was ruled out and removed from the base. Offensisve coach protests and after a long discussion the UIC ruled FLEX out and put the runner on first on second so we continue with one out R2 on second. So my question is what would you have called here and what rule can you use to justify the UIC ruling?

Speaking ASA

You are correct, this is not BOO. It is, however, an illegal player. This calls for a DQ and the player is replaced by a substitute or via legal reentry by the player which is supposed to be there.

Here is the problem. Since the IP did not replace any of the first nine players in the line-up, there is no available player to replace the IP. Do you remove the IP and rule an out or just DQ the IP?

I would probably just DQ the IP. Moving other runners up a base is just wrong as their at bat and advance to 1B was not affected by the presence of the IP.

4.6.E.2.Effect.1.c

[rwest]

We talked about this ad nauseum at our local FP Devlopment School. The reason why they moved the runner from 1B to 2B is they felt they had to honor the advance. By rule all bases advanced are legal once a pitch has been thrown to the next batter. Therefore, they felt obligated to advance the runner from 1b. After the offense protested, they held up the game for about 30 minutes while the UIC's tallked it over. I believe Dick Gayler was even involved in the conversation. I could be mistaken about that.

Originally when I heard it I thought: DQ the FLEX, get an out and leave the runner at 1B. I just can't see taken a runner off base, without an out. However, after a great deal of discussion, it was determined you can't get an out because they are not an illegal substitute. They've been batting the entire game. They were not an illegal batter. That rule only applies to the first 9 batters. The FLEX was batting 10th.

So, I think the runner should have been left at 1b and we DQ the FLEX as if she/he never batted. No outs.

One further comment. I have to say that the individuals involved have far more experience and knowledge than I and that if I were one of the umpires, I wouldn't have disputed the ruling too vigorously. I would have gone along with it. Both umpires are first class, IMO. One of them was even an instructor at the aforementioned FP Development School. I learned alot from him. He did get some friendly ribbing the entire weekend, though. He took it well!

The rule book is not real clear on this situation. In fact, I believe this was discussed at OK City and the national staff came up with three different rulings. I don't know what they were, but that's what was said at our FP school.

I bet we have a new rule next year.

[ntxblue]

Originally posted by rwest

. . . However, after a great deal of discussion, it was determined you can't get an out because they are not an illegal substitute. They've been batting the entire game. They were not an illegal batter. That rule only applies to the first 9 batters. The FLEX was batting 10th.

Does it really make any difference that the FLEX was batting the entire game? Who is responsible for catching that error? The FLEX was in the game illegally - batting in a place other than that of the DP. Her current position was outside the role that is allowed to be played by the FLEX.

[rwest]

If you go by the letter of the law the FLEX is only an illegal batter if she bats in one of the first 9 positions in the batting order other than the DP. In this case she wasn't. She was batting 10th. Strictly by the rulebook, she is not an illegal batter. However, an illegal player is someone not entitled to that position in the lineup, either on offense or defense. So she is illegal. But an illegal what? Not an illegal batter. She's not an illegal runner or pitcher. Could we get her for an illegal substitute? No, she was playing the entire game. She didn't sub for anyone. Its not an illegal re-entry.

IMO, there's a hole in the rules and will probably be corrected next year.

[ntxblue]

Originally posted by rwest
If you go by the letter of the law the FLEX is only an illegal batter if she bats in one of the first 9 positions in the batting order other than the DP. In this case she wasn't. She was batting 10th. Strictly by the rulebook, she is not an illegal batter.

Since when does ASA fastpitch allow for 10 batters in the lineup? Only nine can bat. Just because the FLEX went up to bat after the number nine batter - it doesn't make the FLEX the tenth batter. Batter position one would be the correct batter. Until caught by the defense . . .

As with all situations, they seem easier to deal with when you are removed from the pressure of the situation.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by rwest
We talked about this ad nauseum at our local FP Devlopment School. The reason why they moved the runner from 1B to 2B is they felt they had to honor the advance. By rule all bases advanced are legal once a pitch has been thrown to the next batter. Therefore, they felt obligated to advance the runner from 1b. After the offense protested, they held up the game for about 30 minutes while the UIC's tallked it over. I believe Dick Gayler was even involved in the conversation. I could be mistaken about that.

The problem I have with this is that the "based advanced" was done so by what will be determined as an non-entity. If you recognize the base advancment, why couldn't you call an out? After all, there were two runners and now there is only one. Cannot have it both ways.

The only "legal" runner at this point was the #1 batter in the line-up and that player only earned 1B.

What standing does the offense have for protesting ANY ruling? They are the party in violation of the rules.

[mcrowder]

Any reason you can't treat this as an unannounced sub and a BOO? After B9 was supposed to be B1, but instead, Flex came to bat in B1's slot in the lineup, unannounced (and illegally as well). The illegal substitution was not caught before a pitch was pitched to the next batter. Then, B2 is supposed to bat, but B1 comes to the plate. B1 takes at least 1 pitch, so Flex (in B1's spot) is now legal (well, not legal, but no longer BOO). B1 is now BOO for B2. Once this is caught before a pitch is thrown to the next batter, B2 is out for not batting, Flex must be removed from the basepaths as an illegal substitute (and substituted for --- sidebar, is B9 a legal replacement for FLEX now on the bases?), B1 is out, and now B3 takes her proper spot in the batters box.

Not sure if this is right either, but it seems more defensible by the rules than what they DID do.

PS - Mike, even though offense is at fault, they have every right to protest if the Umpires do not handle the situation correctly... Say, perhaps, umpires ruled everyone out. Even though we have not come to consensus on what was "right" to rectify this, I think we'd all agree that calling both runners out would be wrong, and offense could (and should!) protest.

Just because a team is at fault doesn't mean they can not protest if we don't penalize them correctly.

[Edited by mcrowder on Mar 1st, 2005 at 03:54 PM]

[Dakota]

Originally posted by rwest
If you go by the letter of the law the FLEX is only an illegal batter if she bats in one of the first 9 positions in the batting order other than the DP. In this case she wasn't. She was batting 10th. Strictly by the rulebook, she is not an illegal batter. However, an illegal player is someone not entitled to that position in the lineup, either on offense or defense. So she is illegal. But an illegal what? Not an illegal batter. She's not an illegal runner or pitcher. Could we get her for an illegal substitute? No, she was playing the entire game. She didn't sub for anyone. Its not an illegal re-entry.

IMO, there's a hole in the rules and will probably be corrected next year.

You are way overanlyzing this, IMO. Paragraphs 1-4 following 4-6-E give specific examples of illegal players. It does not claim to list all possible examples of an illegal player. Notice the EFFECT (except for #1) is not listed until after all of the examples. The ASA rule book never has tried to list all possible situations. Apply 10-1 if you must have a justification, but I would simply apply the EFFECT given.

Originally posted by mcrowder
Any reason you can't treat this as an unannounced sub and a BOO?

Yes, because the FLEX batting after the DP is, by definition of 4-6-E an illegal player, not an unannounced sub. An unannounced sub is legal for the substitution, just not announced.

The ruling made was wrong, that is clear.

What we would have is EFFECT a)-3), an illegal player who has completed a turn at bat and a pitch has been thrown. The illegal player is DQed and removed from the base. The illegal player may be replaced on the base if the team has an eligible sub. The advance of R2 stands. If there are no eligible subs for FLEX, then the shorthanded rule applies, and by 4-1-D-2-c, the illegal player is declared OUT.

[dtwsd]

Originally posted by rwest
We talked about this ad nauseum at our local FP Devlopment School.

The rule book is not real clear on this situation. In fact, I believe this was discussed at OK City and the national staff came up with three different rulings.

OK City and the national staff came up with three different rulings??? All of this is another reason (IMO) that Flex/DP needs to be removed from the game. It creates way more problems than it solves. The game would be much better off without it.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by dtwsd

OK City and the national staff came up with three different rulings???

Talk about overreacting! It was heard at a local school that perhaps this was discussed at OKC and maybe the NUS couldn't agree on the ruling but we don't even know what those supposed rulings were.

Why not just remove all the rules that people are confused by.

Let's see, there's obstruction, interference, infield fly, dropped third strike, foul tip, some parts of the foul ball rule, look back rule, running lane violations, overrunning first base, live ball appeal, dead ball appeal, ... gosh, I must be forgetting some!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mcrowder


PS - Mike, even though offense is at fault, they have every right to protest if the Umpires do not handle the situation correctly... Say, perhaps, umpires ruled everyone out. Even though we have not come to consensus on what was "right" to rectify this, I think we'd all agree that calling both runners out would be wrong, and offense could (and should!) protest.

Just because a team is at fault doesn't mean they can not protest if we don't penalize them correctly.

[Edited by mcrowder on Mar 1st, 2005 at 03:54 PM]

I was not referring to "protest" as in rule 9, but as in complaining about a ruling that didn't happen to sit well with them in spite of the fact that it was brought about due to the inability to manage their team.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally posted by Dakota
You are way overanlyzing this, IMO. Paragraphs 1-4 following 4-6-E give specific examples of illegal players. It does not claim to list all possible examples of an illegal player. Notice the EFFECT (except for #1) is not listed until after all of the examples. The ASA rule book never has tried to list all possible situations. Apply 10-1 if you must have a justification, but I would simply apply the EFFECT given.

Yes, because the FLEX batting after the DP is, by definition of 4-6-E an illegal player, not an unannounced sub. An unannounced sub is legal for the substitution, just not announced.

The ruling made was wrong, that is clear.

What we would have is EFFECT a)-3), an illegal player who has completed a turn at bat and a pitch has been thrown. The illegal player is DQed and removed from the base. The illegal player may be replaced on the base if the team has an eligible sub. The advance of R2 stands. If there are no eligible subs for FLEX, then the shorthanded rule applies, and by 4-1-D-2-c, the illegal player is declared OUT.

I agree with Tom, that the illegal player ruling is the correct application. BUT, I am still unconvinced that BOO doesn't also apply to B2. (NOTE: I was on an adjacent field, and discussed the ruling after the game with the UIC.) Not only did the FLEX become an illegal player when entering for someone other than the DP on offense, the FLEX batted for B1. When a next pitch was thrown, the proper batter was B2, yet B1 batted. At the completion of that at-bat, the defense properly appealed BOO, before a next pitch. I believe that Tom's ruling (the same made by Dick Gayler, incidently) should be supplemented by B2 being declared out, incorrect B1 removed from 1B, the advance by R1 negated, and B1 re-entered as R1 on 1B.

If we think in terms that the legal batting order is supported by position 1-9 in the scorebook, and that the offense can't create position 10, the FLEX batted in B1's place; after all, she batted SOMEWHERE! Simply calling her an illegal player (yes, she is, but not limited to that) doesn't correct the other illegal act she committed, batting out of order. Scorekeeper must enter her actions there, once a following pitch is thrown. B2 is now the correct batter, and the BOO rule should have been enforced, as well (IMO).

[Dakota]

Regarding the BOO, I agree that a ruling that the illegal position the FLEX took in the batting order was B1 would be plausible. This would mean that after the dust had settled, that S11 (for example) takes 2nd as FLEX is DQed and removed from the base (S11 becomes the new FLEX), and R2 is left on 1st base. This completes the ruling on illegal player. Then, in a separate ruling, R2 is ruled to have batted out of order (since B2 was due up), B2 is declared OUT, R2 removed from 1st, and B3 is up to bat.

Plausible, and defensible. Would it stand up to protest? BFOM.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
I was not referring to "protest" as in rule 9, but as in complaining about a ruling that didn't happen to sit well with them in spite of the fact that it was brought about due to the inability to manage their team.
[/B]

I misunderstood you then, because the initial post mentioned that the offense PROTESTED (which seemed to be a rule 9 protest, since UIC was called over and the ruling on the field reviewed), and it seemed it was that action that you were disagreeing with when you said

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
What standing does the offense have for protesting ANY ruling? They are the party in violation of the rules. [/B]