Speculation, mind you, but here are several reasons:

1) When the rules were changed (several times, actually, but I have a totally rewritten section in the 1999 book), they didn't propose to add another item to the finite list of appeals in the book. Could have been proposed by the authors, or the editors could have addressed the issue; obviously not.

2) All appeals, as defined, are actually violations by the offense that only the defense can initiate a call. The rulebook editors of that time wouldn't have accepted this as an "appeal" because these violations CAN be made by the defense and the "protest" invoked by the offense (AND even by the umpire in NFHS).

3) Simply a poor choice of words. These aren't actually handled as a protest, despite the rule wording. Has anyone ever demanded a protest fee and then brought the UIC or Protest Committee over to address the "protest" of an unreported sub or illegal player? Of course not.

Hate to say it, but NCAA rules are more accurate here; they don't use appeal OR protest, as both are incorrect. NCAA simply addresses that the violations are REPORTED by the offended team, and then ruled on appropriately.

What you seem to be missing here, and what Tom is trying to get you to see in a round about way, is that Mike (Irishmafia), offered no other course of action than either Tom or myself had previously posited. Yet, only because he took it to the absolutely extreme of what he would do if the coach insisted on taking an illegal course of action after being told by the umpire it was an illegal course of action, you seem to think there was some epiphany. This is what we would all have done when pushed to that point. Yet, as noted by Tom in an earlier post, it will never come to that because when you tell a coach something is illegal, they always take the legal course of action,

Now, the reason I put part of the previous paragraph in bold and italic type is this; your initial argument with myself was because I had mentioned that I would tell the coach that the substitution they were wanting to make was illegal. Both Tom and myself asked you how you would handle, then, and you never gave us an answer. You still haven't given an answer. However, by the fact that you now agree so wholeheartedly with Mike, establishing the fact that you have learned and grown as an umpire, is it safe to assume that you would now, in fact, tell the coach trying to make an illegal substitution that they action they were taking was illegal? Has this changed your belief that an umpire refusing to take an illegal substitution is, in some form or fashion, coaching?

sorry all, just a note to read this when I have more time :)