unreported sub NFHS

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

It should be interpreted this way. Like any progressive disciplinary system, you must progress through one step before you penalize at the next level. The threat of a harsher penalty allows for the offender to correct his negative behaviour at the first level.

The NFHS has 10 team mis-conduct rules that invoke a warning, AND then a restriction for the next offender. Using your interpretation, if you discovered two players with jewelry, or two players behind the backstop, you could warn one and throw the second one out of the game.

There are 6 player mis-conduct rules in which the umpire has the option to issue a warning, with ejection for the second offense by the same player. If a player used two cuss words in the same sentence, would you warn for the first word, and then eject for the second?

OK, maybe I am being a little facetious, but when you look at the entire set of rule, rather than one out of context, you can see that your interpretation cannot work.
WMB

I see the error of my thinking. Thanks for 'dumbing' it down for me.

This was not my game, a friend ask me about it. He gave a warning to the runner on second and called out the runner on first. I told him it sounded reasonable to me but I started thinking about it and decided I was not sure. Are we saying both should have gotten a warning?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by softball_junky

This was not my game, a friend ask me about it. He gave a warning to the runner on second and called out the runner on first. I told him it sounded reasonable to me but I started thinking about it and decided I was not sure. Are we saying both should have gotten a warning?

Calling the runner out was definitely wrong.

Basically, the team gets one warning that covers both unreported subs. If that team does it again, then the player who enters unreported is restricted to the bench.