And if you read my first post you will see that I qualified my statement based on rules being comparable to ASA.

Nonetheless, IMPO, any rule which supports such a "cascading" effect that compromises the actions of others not related to the original error, is ludicrous. As previously stated, no player did anything wrong besides Sub 1 and #8.

I suspect it is more of a "We didn't think of THAT!" on the part of the rules writers / editors. True BOO infractions don't cascade because the BOO rule has a "stop damage" rule for declaring past infractions legal.

The bug-a-boo about the illegal player rule is the illegal player remains illegal past the next pitch. There is no provision allowing for an "inserted" player instead of an illegal sub. With the FLEX, and with the various EP rule sets, such an allowance would seem to be useful to stop the cascading.

Speaking NFHS now (since I don't know U-trip), I'd like to see this addressed in the illegal player rules. There was some hint that NFHS would likely interpret the cascading as unintended and not the proper ruling, but I've seen nothing official. ASA has somewhat of the same problem, but it is more limited in the situations and the total damage.

Where it is most likely to come up in the fast pitch game is confusion (by the players or even coaches) surrounding the listing of the FLEX as B10 in the lineup. If she bats, she has to be batting FOR someone, not just inserting herself into the order as B10.

I have now read several posts here in the past few months where, by the interpretations given in this board, a simple oversight by one player becomes a rolling snowball that threatens to wipeout an entire game.

I think Mike's initial interpretation is the most sane one: One BOO that wasn't caught, play on.

Which has the unfortunate problem of not being supported by the rules. There was no BOO. There was not a player who was IN the batting order who batted in the wrong slot. You cannot apply the BOO rule to an unreported substitute and illegal re-entry just because you think it is the "most sane."

I don't think we need to go outside the rules to fix this. I believe Mike has this nailed without over thinking it. Reading ASA Rule 4 section 6-C 3 and 4 we can understand the intention. 3 tells us we get and out and a disqualification prior to a pitch or play. 4 tells us that after a pitch, that the at-bat and all actions are legitimized and only the illegal substitution can be corrected. The real question falls to who did the illegal sub enter the game for? Our assumption is for B8, but the rules give us no real guidance. We use our judgment and common sense to determine which players are affected. So lets run down the scenarios.

1)Illegal sub takes a pitch and defense protests. Sub disqualified B8 assumes count. B8 makes most sense.
2)Illegal sub reaches base, defense protests prior to pitch. Sub out and disqualified, B8 re-enters or legal sub enters. Move any runners back and B9 up. Again makes the most sense that illegal sub was for B8.
3)Illegal sub reaches base and B8 takes a pitch. Defense protests. 4-6-C-4 tells us we do not have an out and all previous play stands. To me there are two possible fixes to “Who's on First”
a) Sub disqualified, B8 re-enters or legal sub to replace at base occupied and B9 assumes count. This still assumes the illegal sub was for B8. Of course the issue becomes how can B8 be on base and bat at the same time?
b) Sub disqualified B7 re-enters or legal sub to replace at base occupied and B8 continues to bat. Instead of multiple illegal subs we have illegal sub for B7 who BOO. First pitch to B8 make at bat legal and we just fix the illegal sub.

To me the offense screwed up with the illegal substitution but the defense screwed up but by letting it go to long. My reading of 4-6-C-4 is the defense has lost its opportunity to get an out and undo play and this is now just a fix it. I do not believe that ASA or NFHS wants a forfeit due to cascading illegal substitutes. But I could be wrong.

Paul

OK,simplifying the OP for discussion purposes.

S1 enters to bat unreported when B8 is due up. S1 hits the ball and reaches base.
B8 bats, hits the ball, reaches base and advances S1.
B9 bats, hits a double (this is to clear the bases of S1 and B8). S1 and B8 score.
B1 takes a pitch and the defense protests.

At the time S1 stepped into the batter's box, there is no confusion as to who she is batting for by rule (since she was unreported, we don't know who she THOUGHT she was batting for). She is batting for B8. There is no one else she could be batting for. The only legal place for B8, then, to re-enter the game is in the batter's box while S1 is still at-bat, or on base to run for S1. Anything else is illegal.

Do we agree with that so far?

Leave ASA out of the discussion. The OP was U-trip, and it has been stated that U-trip follows (by and large) NFHS rules. Since I have an NFHS rule book, but not a U-trip book, then I'll use NFHS.

I agree that NFHS (and by extension, U-trip) do not want cascading penalties, but they need to address this in the rules / interpretations. The problem is that once the illegal player completes her at bat, and then the other player's follow in order, to stop the cascade, we have to resort to some kind of made up interpretation. Not a bad solution on the field in a real game (especially if protests are not allowed), but this is a rules discussion board, not a real game.

Once we have B8 as an illegal re-entry, we then have the problem, again, of who she is re-entering for, and the cascade begins. There needs to be some kind of stop-loss rule here. Simple language about batters following in order or something would help. Or, even a "call it like we say, not like the rules say" official interpretation would work.

As I said, this is a situation that takes the unreported sub / illegal re-entry scenario beyond where the rules writers have apparently thought it though. It needs to be addressed officially.

“At the time S1 stepped into the batter's box, there is no confusion as to who she is batting for by rule (since she was unreported, we don't know who she THOUGHT she was batting for). She is batting for B8. There is no one else she could be batting for. The only legal place for B8, then, to re-enter the game is in the batter's box while S1 is still at-bat, or on base to run for S1. Anything else is illegal.”

Do we agree with that so far?

Yes and no. Sorry if I was not illustrative enough. S1 (the illegal sub) isn’t anything until the offensive manager or umpire assign her a status. Remember the offensive coach can fix this prior to the defense protesting. With the view that she is automatically in the line up in the spot you chose, that would not be possible. With your situation and the defensive coach protests, than I would agree. But I believe the ongoing situation is fluid. For instance if the offensive manager catches the mistake he could sub S1 for B7 to preserve re-entry rights for B8 and then bring the correct batter B8 to bat. With S1 on base the defensive coach could sub her for anyone not on base or at bat if caught before a protest. If S1 scores as in the OP and is in the dugout too bad.


I am not saying this should not be addressed and clearly spelled out. More information is usually helpful.

Paul

S1 is not an illegal sub. She is an unreported sub. That is what she is, by rule. Remember, we are talking NFHS here. NFHS Rule 3-3-3No, he can't. Not in NFHS. He can mitigate the penalty, but she has already entered the game and B8 has left the game. No option.See above rule cite. She IS automatically in the lineup by rule.No, he can't. Not in NFHS.No, he can't. Not in NFHS.

The bottom line is, in NFHS, once S1 steps into the batter's box, and the ball is live, she is in the game. No option. He can mitigate the penalty by announcing the sub (a team warning results), but he can't change the fact that S1 has entered the game and B8 has left the game.

The problem here is that the coach probably did not know this was an unreported sub. He thought it was the EP. Hence, he will make no effort to correct the mistake, hence the high probability of a more severe error (illegal player) and the cascade of illegal players.