I agree with your analysis. However, I think we should all <i>also</i> agree that this is still a poor question.

tcannizzo clearly has the necessary understanding to properly rule on this play, yet, his confusion resides on a semantic technicality.

What's the POINT of this question? What are the test administrators trying to reveal about the umpire's knowledge, or lack thereof?

Wouldn't it be simpler if choice (C) simply read, "B1 is liable as an unreported substitute"?

A good question should minimize the extent that the test-taker has to interpret the nuances of the question - especially if those nuances are largely semantic in nature - like <i>this</i> question.

The POINT this question is testing is excellent. The WAY in which it is being tested is poor.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 6th, 2006 at 02:29 PM]

If your official ruling on the field was "illegal substitute", you would be laughed off the field. Just like if you referred to a "foul tip" that went to the backstop. lol

Why? The book refers to a legal substitute, so why can there not be a reference to an illegal substitute?

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the question. The scenario presented the fact that B1 was an unreported substitute. This isn't "English 101 for football recruits".

Is an unreported sub in the game legally? Obviously, not or that player wouldn't be in jeopardy of disqualification if caught by the offended team prior to being reported.

But Tom, the question specifically says the defense brought the sub to the attention of the umpire... making her illegal.

I agree that a more specific answer in C would have been better - perhaps something indicating the penalty. But that omission does not invalidate the question. Once the umpire was notified, the unreported sub becomes illegal - and penalties now apply.

I'm looking at this from a different angle, one brought on by oxycodone and other pain killers after getting my left knee done the other day (damn slow pitch!!!!).

I'm sorry, but I just don't see what the big deal is. She is now illegal because she was ratted out as an unreported sub. She's as out as she can be, let's get another ball back to the pitcher, we have one out, batter up, play ball.

We need the dead horse animated gif. Rules tests have never been written to appeal to a grammarian. As has been alluded to previously in this thread, it does have the feel of ballpark vernacular, especially this question. So what? It's NOT a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

A trick question. My answer is C, since the others are dead wrong, and the player is an unreported substitute and not an illegal one. This "game-winnning" hit becomes the last play of the game, and if an unreported substitute is discovered and an appeal is made before the umpires have left the field, that player is disqualified and declared an out, while the other players are returned to the bases occupied prior.

What is so hard to understand here? There is no such defined animal as an "illegal substitute". We know the player is an unreported sub because it states so in the text of the question. Of course, the use of an unreported substitute is an illegal action. You cannot tell me that the player is not an illegal substitute as you have no definition.

The only reason this could be considered a "trick question" is by people reading more into the question and answer than is on the paper in front of them.

Really? So... you're applying a penalty for something that is not illegal? Odd, that.

I believe that this is a sly question, used to test the knowledge of definitions and the applications of the rules.
I'm basing this on the ASA book and my experience and what do about an unreported substitute who is playing when the game ends, and when the protest is made. The home run ends the game. The umpires have not left the field, and the protest is made before they have left the field. The unreported substitute is disqualified with an out, and all other runners, if any, are returned to the base occupied prior to the at bat by the unreported substitute.
There is a difference between an illegal substitute and an unreported substitute.
That's all
have a great season

Situation #1: Team A's coach reports a substitution to the PU. #23 is subbing for #3. The umpire notes the change on his lineup card and reports the change to Team B. #23 walks. Before the next pitch Team B says, "Wait just a minute! #23 was the courtesy runner earlier in this inning. She cannot enter the game on offense in the same half inning. She's an illegal substitute!"

Ruling?

Situation #2: Team A sends #18 to bat for #3. #18 has not yet made an appearance in the game. The substitution is *not* reported to the umpire. #18 walks. Before the next pitch Team B says, "Wait just a minute! Who's that on 1st? Was she reported as a substitute?"

Ruling?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 10th, 2006 at 11:13 AM]

Illegal player. DQed and declared out. ASA 8-10-D, G, and ASA 4-6-E-EFFECT-b. And the PU should be ashamed of himself.

Same, except it is an unreported subsituted, and no need for the PU being ashamed. ASA 4-6-B-EXCEPTION-1.

I believe that in the first situation you have an illegal player, who, since she was a courtesy runner in the same inning, doesn't have a legal right to that position. If discovered and protessted after one pitch or one play, the penalty is disqualification of the offending player and she is replaced by a substitute player or the starter.
The second situation is an unreported substitute who is disqualified, all outs stand, and all players are returned to their original bases.
As you can see, the penalty inforcement is different.
Now that's what I believe, but I can be wrong.

Make sure you are looking at the rule covering an offensive player who has completed her turn at bat, reached base safely and the protest is made before the next pitch. (The US / IP is declared out in that situation.)

Really?? How would you know if there is no definition of "illegal substitute" in the book? :O