Interesting that this has not been brought up yet:

27) Bottom of the 7th inning, on the first pitch, B1, an unreported substitute hits a homerun for the apparent winning run. Before the umpires leave live ball territory, the defense notifies the umpire about B1.

a. Homerun stands since the ball became dead on the homerun
Rule 4.6.C.3 - Effect - all runners will be returned to the bases occupied prior to the pitch, B1 is DQ'd and called out.

b. Game is over
There is only one out

c. B1 is an illegal substitute
B1 is an unreported substitute

d. Legal since a pitch was made
This is just wrong

My answer: None of the above...but that is not an option on the test.

An unreported substitute <i>is</i> an illegal substitute.

Read the EFFECT at the bottom of ASA Rule 4-7-G, "Any infraction of section G2-4 that occurs are governed by the Unreported Substitute rule, Rule 4 Section 6 A-C1-9."

They are treated the same.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Sorry, David; I don't buy that at all. An unreported sub is a defined term; an illegal sub is a different defined term. The definitions, penalties, and effects are not the same. It is possible that an illegal sub is also an unreported sub; it is equally possible that a legal sub is an unreported sub. There is nothing in this question, as I read it, that makes B1 an illegal sub.

The defense notifys the Umps so this is an appeal and the batter has now become an illegal sub .

Please cite the ASA Rule that specifies this.

The closest the 2006 Rule Book comes is that they refer to the unreported sub as an illegal player, but not an illegal sub.

As Steve points out, an unreported sub can be a legal sub. An illegal sub is a player who is not eligble to be a sub. But a legal sub might enter the game and simply not report.

Question 27 is bogus.

Actually, there is no definition for an "illegal substitute". You either have an unreported substitute or an illegal player.

An US could be an IP. An IP cannot be an US, but in certain instances are treated in a similar fashon.

However, failure to report a substitute is a violation making the action illegal. Hence, the notation that B1 was an illegal substitute in common language, not softballese.

Besides, it was the closest thing to an intelligent option offered.

How can an umpire refer to an "Illegal Substitute" if no such designation appears in the entire text of the Official Rule?

Where does it state that an umpire (other than in this thread) referred to an Illegal Substitute?

The question already stated that B1 was an unreported substitute. You need to take the answer as the cause for the protest, not a definition. To enter an unreported substitute into the game is an "illegal" action.

I'll keep it simple. . .Q27 is completely bogus.

I disagree. It's not like they capitalized Illegal Substitute, as if to intimate that that phrase had a specific meaning in the definition section. The answer (C) could have been clearer, specifying the penalty to be enforced, but it's not inaccurate or wrong. C is the only answer that is not wrong ... making it the right answer.

The batter, an unreported substitute, was not a legal substitute - what does "illegal" mean other than "not legal"?

I see nothing wrong with this question.

To expect test-takers to distinguish between an official (capitalized) term and a generic (lower-cased) term is going a little far.

You don't have to make any distinction at all. The only reason I mentioned that is that some here seem to be trying to associate some sort of "Official Meaning" to the phrase "illegal substitute", when there is none. The words are there, in regular type, without any super-secret meaning.

Are you guys trying to say that "B1 is an illegal substitute" is not true? If so, why? It IS true, which makes C the right answer.

If it had said "B1 is an Illegal Substitute", I could see the confusion - you might think that "Illegal Substitute" has some sort of different status from an "unreported substitute". It would still not be incorrect, but I could see the reason some would wonder about it.

Without the caps, C is just saying that the substitute is not legal ... which is correct, and the ONLY correct answer in our choices. Don't read more into is than is given, and it makes plenty of sense.

B1 would be an illegal substitute if:
a.) a starter who is re-entering a 2nd time
b.) a player not on the team roster
c.) a sub who is re-entering for a 2nd time
d.) a player who was previously disqualified

Many unreported substitutes are legal substitutes, but were simply sent into the game by the coach who has forgotten to inform the PU of the change.

I don't see your point at all.

Yeah, there are several cases where an unreported substitute is illegal. There are cases where the unreported substitute becomes legal or legitimized, and there are cases where even appealing an unreported substitute has no detrimental effect to the team that forgot to report the substitute... How does that have any effect on this question?

The unannounced substitute mentioned in the question is not legal (and there is a penalty attached). So the answer is C. Very simple, really.

Unless someone can tell us why (C) is not true, the complaint about this question is kind of pointless.

This question is very poorly constructed.

While c) is the only feasibly correct answer, you get there by process of elimination - a, b, and d are obviously wrong, leaving us with the vaguely worded c. It is not proper wording of the answer, IMO, since there is no such entity as an "illegal substitute", leaving you with the generic meaning of "the substitution was not legal."

One would expect, from the scenario offered, that the answer would have something to do with the proper ruling; instead to have the correct answer be, simply, that an unreported substitute is illegal is both confusing and overly generic.