Having just received my ASA certification, this was a little new to me when it was covered in last weeks local rules meeting. Thought maybe some of the experienced guys could clear this up.

If a coach attempts to make an illegal substitution, should the umpire:

- accept the sub without comment, and wait for the other team to appeal before enforcing the penalty, or;

- inform the coach that the sub is illegal and prevent him from making it?

From what I got in class, the instructor seemed to be telling us that you allow the sub, then wait for the other team to appeal. He did suggest first asking the coach, "Are you sure you want to do that?" before accepting the change, thus giving the coach a chance to double-check his sub and to confirm that the umpire is recording it correctly.

Then, if the sub is illegal, enforce any penalties only upon appeal.

Did I get what he was telling us right, or did I misunderstand how to handle this?

Or was I maybe just getting drowsy near the end of that two-and-a-half hour meeting?

Im a like you, a little new, but i believe you let the coach make the sub with no comment and wait for the appeal. If no proper appeal, its like it never happened.

IMO, preventative umpiring is always the best course of action. I would inform the coach that the substitution that he/she is attempting to make is not allowed, but if they insisted on doing it anyway, then go ahead and accept it.

I agree with Scott, preventative umpiring keeps problems from appearing
further down the line. Just a simple, "Coach, you sure you want to do
that?" They usually get the message. If asked directly, "Why
do you ask?" Inform them that their move is not legal. I don't feel this
is giving one team an advantage over the other, since I would do the same
if the other team tried to make an illegal substitution. Just keeps things
on an even keel. I don't want to have to eject(restrict) a player because
a coach made a mistake in judgment. Too many times we have to pentalize
a player for a coach's mistake.

(edited for spelling purposes)




[Edited by whiskers_ump on Mar 16th, 2005 at 11:17 AM]

Hey BretMan,

Welcome to the ranks of the ASA world. I know you will be a good addition for your local group.

I'm gonna have to agree with your instructor on this one. I'm not there to advise coaches or players. If I were to inform the coach this isn't legal, I would feel obligated to inform the opposing coach also.

If the coach were to ask "can I make this substitution?", then I might tell him that would be illegal.

Having said that, our local rec starts sat. Play will be weak and coaches new. We usually (during the first part of the season anyway) do a lot of "mini rules clinics" during the games. Everbody bats, no sub rules, so this won't come up.

Skaht, i sorta agree, but doesnt that potentially tip off, if not create suspision, to the opposing team to appeal? Not questioning your experience, but having played and coached, i used to watch for that sort of conversation and almost always found the reason to appeal.

JEL,

What you have stated is almost word-for-word what our instructor said.

If the coach would specifically ask, "Am I allowed to do this...", then the umpire should state the applicable rule. It would then be up to the coach to decide if he still wanted to make the sub.

If a coach is attempting to make an illegal sub, the instructor suggested asking, "Are you sure you want to do that?". That gave the coach a chance to double-check his sub request, and also helped confirm for the umpire that he was understanding the request correctly.

That way you have both a dose of "preventive" umpiring and give the coach a chance to correct the mistake before it happens, but at the same time you are not denying the other team of their chance to appeal an illegal sub violation.

Sound about right? I thought that I had a good handle on this, until another umpire a few days later told me to flat-out never allow the illegal sub to take place.

WHY:

Do you keep a line-up card?

Do you ask that all changes come through you, and then you notify the official scorekeeper?

If you are not going to use that for preventative umpiring, then why bother?

I find it hard to accept than an umpire would delibertely allow a coach to enter an illegal substitute, and then kick the player out of the game when the other team objected.

"Time Blue. Courtesy runner for my catcher."
"Can't do that Coach."
"Why not?"
"Because she already ran for your pitcher. You have to use a different player."
"But I don't have anyone else."
"Not my problem, Coach. But this one is illegal"
"Oh, alright," as she sends the runner back to the dugout.

Do you really think that this is some how cheating? Or helping one team over the other?

If you want a pretty good authority on this subject, go to Cactus Umpires and view Emily Alexander's power point on line-up management. She has many slides telling you to say NO and not allow an improper substitution.

WMB

Its not our place to not allow a coach to break a rule though, is it? Its our job top enforce the breaking of them, i think. Intentions cant be ruled on. (whether he meant to break the rule or not)

Here is something that should NEVER happen in ANY game:

An announced illegal substitute.

The plate umpire should not allow it to happen. Call it preventative umpiring if you will, but I am not going to enter a known illegal sub on my line up card. Won't happen.

Whats the point of the appeal rule then?, if you miss the IS or if the coach misses it(intentions aside). Im tryin to learn here.

If the PU goes brain dead and allows the illegal sub, the remedy is the protest.

If the illegal sub is unnannouced (such as FLEX entering for another player in the batting order), then the remedy is the protest.

As the PU, I do not have an OBLIGATION (as such) to prevent the illegal sub, so I am not required to memorize the names and faces of the players so I can recognize all attempts at unanncounced sub or illegal sub.

But, if the coach brings me a sub that I know to be illegal or any other line up change (such as CR) that I know to be illegal, I will tell him, "Coach, you can't do that." And, I will tell him why.

This is especially true with the DP/FLEX positions. It is very easy for a coach to get wrapped around the axel with this rule, and there are a number of myths about the rule that coaches believe (such as unlimited swapping between the DP and FLEX).

Here is a distinction I would make.

B1 due up.
B2 comes up to bat. I happen to know the team well enough to know B2 is BOO. I will ignore this.

B1 due up.
Coach approaches and says, "I want to bring in #22 to bat for B1." (Now, #22 has already been in the game as a sub for B2.)
I'll say, "Can't do that, coach. #22 has already batted in the #2 spot. She can't sub for the #1 spot player."

That's where my thinking gets muddled, too.

An illegal player is an appealable infraction, right?

As an analogy, missing a base is an appealable infraction. We remain quiet and only apply a penalty if appealed by the other team.

Same with batting out of order. The umpire says nothing unless a proper appeal is offered.

Since an illegal player is an appealable infraction, why is it treated differently than the other two?

To be completely technical, the illegal player is a protest, not an appeal.

Well, I'm all for being completely technical!

Up until now, all of the fastpitch softball I've done has been in leagues that used the continuous batting order, so lineup management hasn't been quite the same issue.

Just want to make sure I've got it right before it becomes an issue during a game.

It is possible that the umpire is not aware of the illegal sub.

If the umpire is aware the coach has a problem, the umpire should question the coach. If the coach says, "Blue, 14 for 12", the umpire should tell the coach that 14 has already been in the game in another slot.

I don't propose you do this screaming across the field. Anytime a coach indicates they want to make a change, the umpire should pull their line-up card and walk toward the coach until the two of you can converse without raising a voice.

It is preventive umpiring. You are not coaching the team, you are telling them that what they are doing is NOT permitted. The penalties are the remedy when something does occur.

If you are just hearing this now, you either haven't been to the right clinics or the clinicians are giving you the rules without advising you on the means of application.

Point taken, but cops dont prevent you from breaking the law. They can inform and encourage, just like us, if we choose, but ultimately we are there to enforce the rules, not prevent anybody from breaking them. Im still tryin to learn here and very open-minded, but i dont see it yet.

As someone in an earlier post, WMB, mentioned go to cactusumpires site.
Hopefully it will aide in conviencing you that preventing something from
happening later down the line is good for you as an umpire.

The one factor everyone is overlooking, and a great reason for prevenative umpiring, is the liability factor. If you as an umpire knowingly allow an illegal sub, and that sub gets injured you will be liable for allowing it. Simply put, protect your own interest. (your wallet and home)

Where do you get that cops don't prevent you breaking the law??? Are you saying that if you tell a cop you are about to rob a bank, he can say go ahead and then arrest you when you do it??? Call it informing or encouraging, that cop is going to prevent you robbing that bank.

Then why do you say umpires shouldn't prevent illegal conduct? You do it when you inspect bats before the game and tell them to put the illegal ones back in the car or tell them the ball they just handed you has the wrong COR. It's the same thing with anything that has to go through me. IMO, if they didn't want me to "approve" a sub or CR, then they wouldn't have to tell me when they did it.

Which batter is up next is not something that I have to record each at bat. The score keeper does this and if discovered, then an appeal is in order. Missing a base used to be a direct call by the ump, but that was changed by specific rule, moving it to an appeal. (Still don't like that, as I believe you either broke the rule or you didn't, and a team shouldn't be able to break rules with impunity just because the other team is asleep. I believe this teaches the players the wrong lesson in life; it's okay to break the law as long as you don't get caught!?!?! Okay, off my soap box now.)

Not meaning to be hard or overly critical here, gtfreek, but this just seems like a real common sense thing. I would question the people that gave you the information about letting it go and then penalizing them if they get caught, and that seems to be what you are doing by posting here.

Keep questioning, because, as a High School Physics teacher taught me years ago, "the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask."

"but" This word alone shows me that we may be wasting our time. What people are posting here is the prescribed manner in which to handle these situations.

Do yourself a favor, learn the different measures of preventive umpiring. And I'm not talking about "warning" a coach or player about everything happening. I'm talking about the administrative part of the job. It will keep you in the game and on the field.

I must admit, i believe i was wrong after hereing some more experienced advice. I still think there could be a point where you have to let a coach/player be wrong. Like with inspection of bats; if i inspect the bats and then during the game one is introduced, would you still try to prevent it?

As far as the cop thing, its a different circumstance if the crook tells the cop, we were talkin about the cop preventing. That can get a little funny, i mean no cop is gonna try to prevent every crime (56mph in 55 zone), but in light of this conversation, i guess they do try to prevent some. Im learnin. Thx

Thanks, all, for the input.

Mike: No, I probably haven't been attending the right clinics. Or, any clinics for that matter, since I just became ASA certified eight days ago. So far, I've only been to the local association rule meetings.

Most definitely, I will follow-up with the class instructor at the next association meeting. That's my reason for bringing this up- to get it right BEFORE I need to apply it on the field.

Still, there's something I can't shake that just doesn't feel right about this. On one hand, we can prevent a coach from making an illegal sub, thus preventing a penalty. Yet, on the other, as you note, "It is possible that the umpire is not aware of the illegal sub." If protested, we nail this team.

It seems that in the second case, the umpires lack of diligence has put one team in a potentially bad situation.

What type of reaction might we expect if one coach is penalized for an illegal sub, while perhaps earlier in the game you have prevented the opposing coach from making the same mistake through "preventive umpiring"?

And what ever happened to the frequent cry of "it's the coaches responsibility to know the rules"?

No, I am not aruguing anyone's point from this thread, just offering up a few thoughts. As I said, I will follow-up with the instructor and I'm sure that he will set me straight.

It is possible for the umpire to allow an illegal player to enter the game because he is not paying attention, but the most likely way an illegal player enters the game is because the player is also unnanounced.

Maybe looking at it this way will help. What happens when the coach comes to you and says, "I'm entering #22 for #18."

1) You find the players on your line up card.
2) You make the notation of the substitution.
3) You inform the scorekeeper of the change.

Notice that YOU are responsible for DOING something here. You are not just a robot following orders. If you allow the illegal substitution of #22 for #18 (who cares why it is illegal - for the sake of the discussion, it just is) then YOU have to make an illegal line up change on your card, and YOU have to inform the scorekeeper to make an illegal change.

If you screw up and allow an illegal change for one coach after stopping one for the other coach, well, though luck, coach. No different from any other ruling that may have gone bad for one team and good for the other. It shouldn't happen, but it does.

Dakota, the second i say i hate you, 'you totally redeem yourself.' Im beginning to like it around here. Whether yall like me remains to be seen/heard.

Im still a little fague on when to do what, when it comes to some of the rules.

I live to be redeemed! ;)

Of course, to be redeemed, you first have to fall, right? ;)

Nope, we were born into sin. So go and sin no more.

Nice Post Tom. I would like to hear 03matrixrs' reply also. :D

Think you already did ;)