unreported sub NFHS

coach subs number 4 batter and number 5 batter. fails to report to PU. Number 4 hitter gets single, number 5 hitter get single. After next pitch to number 6 hitter defense now appeals. First unreported sub is team warning. How do you handle second unreported sub after the next pitch?

[MNBlue]

Rules & Cases Directory
Softball Rules Book 2007
Rule 3: Players, Substitutes and Coaches
Section 6: Bench And Field Conduct
Article 7


Art. 7... Players and substitutes shall not enter the contest unreported.
PENTALTY: (Arts. 2 through 10) The umpire shall issue a team warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be restricted to the dugout/bench for the remainder of the game. (Art. 2) A fake tag without the ball is obstruction (8-4-3b). (Arts. 8, 9, 10) For coaches who violate, depending on the severity of the act, the umpire may issue a warning, restrict the offender to bench/dugout for the remainder of the game or eject the offender.

I'm probably going to warn the coach for the first batter and restrict the second batter, bringing back the person that the second batter replaced, or an eligible sub.

[Dakota]

The umpire shall issue a team warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be restricted to the dugout/bench for the remainder of the game.

Isn't the implication the next offender after the warning? It doesn't say a warning for the first offender and the second is restricted. It says a warning is given and the next offender is restricted.

[MNBlue]

I see your distinction, but do you think that the penalty is allowing for multiple simultaneous violators to be encompassed by the warning?

IMO, I don't think so. But, due to the specific wording, I can see how it could be interpretted that way.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

I see your distinction, but do you think that the penalty is allowing for multiple simultaneous violators to be encompassed by the warning?

IMO, I don't think so. But, due to the specific wording, I can see how it could be interpretted that way.

How can you have a "next" offender if there was no warning prior to the protest by the offended team?

[MNBlue]

I don't think you can.

But also, I don't think the rule was intended to allow the violators multiple violations. I think the penalty is poorly written.

[Dholloway1962]

I would agree that this is the one situation where you two warnings for the price of one. Can't restrict in the situation given, in my opinion anyway.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

I see your distinction, but do you think that the penalty is allowing for multiple simultaneous violators to be encompassed by the warning? IMO, I don't think so. But, due to the specific wording, I can see how it could be interpretted that way.

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

[JEL]

There are two, and only two case plays dealing with the unreported sub in the FED book. 3.6.7 A and B on page 29. While neither one is actually identical to this post, I think they do answer the "how to" that is asked

SITUATION A RULING tells us that a team warning is issued the first time it is detected in the game, and that all action on the play stands, and the unreported sub is now in the game.

SITUATION B RULING restricts to the bench because it is the second offense but was commited AFTER a warning.

Even though there were two unreported subs in the game at the same time, "When Discovered" they both became the first offense, and both could then become legal players.

Even reading the PENALTY for rule 3-6-7 we find that they both should stay in the game with a warning. It states in part "The umpire shall issue a team warning...and the NEXT offender...shall be restricted".

There were two offenders when PU was informed, which one of those could have been the "next offender?"

The defensive (and offensive as well) coach should have paid closer attention to the game.

[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.