NFHS Rules Unreported Sub

[whiskers_ump]

I understand the difference between an unreported and an
illegal Sub. What I fail to grasp is why is there not
a more severe penalty for the Unreported gal. Think
about it.
R1 at 3B, R2 at 2B, S1 bats for B3 without reporting to
the PU and gets a hit driving in R1 and R2. In the next
inning the offended coach informs the umpire that S1 who
entered the game in the last inning, was an unreported
substitute. After confirming coach's observation, PU in-
forms offending coach that S1 is an unreported substitute
and issues the offending team a "Team Warning".
S1 officially in game, however, B3 still has a re-entry
coming and all action on the play stands.

Now the once offending team has their "Team Warning. In
another inning we have S2 batting for B1 and has 3-2 count
when observant defensive coach brings to the PU
attention of the fact that she [S2] is an unreported sub..
Since this is second offense by the same team. S2 is
immediately restricted to the dugout/bench area. The
player whom she replaced old B1 may re-enter if she still
has re-entry rights and any other legal sub may complete the
turn at bat.

Please tell me where we have afflicted punishment upon the
offending team. This is one place NFHS needs to kinda look
at. I guess it is another way of getting another player in
that may not have gotten off the *old pine*.

JMHO&V,
glen

BTW, You get bored when you have been house restricted and
feel completely out of touch with everything.

[Roger Greene]

Glen,
You are correct. No real penalty involved here, except to the player who was not reported. However, up untill last year we couldn't even warn for the infraction of not reporting.

USSSA has a penalty that in my opinion is appropriate. On the second offense of an unreported sub, the manager is ejected.(6.5.D) This is good as it is his responsibility to report all subs to the UIC, not the player/sub.

Roger Greene

[Steve M]

I agree - and I think like U-Trip's penalty. I have heard that Fed is considering just such a change for 2003.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Steve M
I agree - and I think like U-Trip's penalty. I have heard that Fed is considering just such a change for 2003.

I don't believe the Fed will call for the ejection of the manager as that brings up the possiblity of an "adult supervision" problem.

I think just DQing the unreported sub for that game is a sufficient penalty and forget the warning. Make the manager manage.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
Glen,

USSSA has a penalty that in my opinion is appropriate. On the second offense of an unreported sub, the manager is ejected.(6.5.D) This is good as it is his responsibility to report all subs to the UIC, not the player/sub.

Roger Greene

That would be good, but you nor I would ever get TASO
to go along with that. Ejecting a coach would really
go against their grain. That would involve written
paper work for doucmentation. To just restrict a coach
is really nothing, but only other course of action I
could probably justify and render.

Thanks,
glen

[Roger Greene]

Mike has a point though, about Fed being concerned about mataining adult supervision. Tournament teams usually have 2 or 3 coaches in addition to the manager that can fulfill that responsibility.

Roger Greene

p.s. In NC/Fed we only have to make written reports of certain "sportsmanship" related ejections. Suspensions required for techinical violations receive no report or further post game action.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
Mike has a point though, about Fed being concerned about mataining adult supervision. Tournament teams usually have 2 or 3 coaches in addition to the manager that can fulfill that responsibility.

Roger Greene

p.s. In NC/Fed we only have to make written reports of certain "sportsmanship" related ejections. Suspensions required for techinical violations receive no report or further post game action.

True, unlike Little League, we don't have the
Team Mom's sitting around waiting to assist
in some way.

[kchamp]

In reading the previous posts, I feel I am in the minority. An unreported sub gains no unfair advantage in the game so long as they have eligibility. Why punish? Reporting allows for timely clerical work that may prevent a snafu later, I'll concede. The less involvment an umpire imparts on a game and still have an orderly and fair game, the better.

Football has penalties. We are arbitrators. Our job is not to punish anyone, but to ensure a fair competition. If we intervene, (eject, award bases, out on appeal) then its to remove some unfair advantage one team has over the other or remove some problem that prevents the game from proceeding with order.

If the manager is willfully disobeying your insistance to report a substitution, remove the problem, move on. Don't punish anyone. Your job is order.

I respect all of yall and love hearing what you have to say.

Cheers
Kent

[IRISHMAFIA]

Kent,

Reporting is what keeps the game orderly and under control.

It keeps the scheming coaches in check.

Think of it this way. In the first inning #10 runs for #3, but never reported. In the seventh inning, #5 would be the tying run, but is injured sliding into second base with no available subs on the bench. So, here come #10 to run for #5. Defensive coach tells the blue that #10 was in the game earlier for another player. Blue checks line-up card and does not see #10 in the game at any point. The umpire has no choice, but to permit #10 to run for #5 unless the one of the umpires knows with full certainty that #10 did indeed partake in the game as a sub for another player.

This is why preventive umpiring is so important. In the situation above, no matter which way the umpiring crew goes, one team is going to believe they were shortchanged.

This is why there needs to be a penalty that will make the coach think about what s/he is doing and entice them to do it right. Remember, when you lose a sub, you now also lose at least one re-entry.

[kchamp]

Good point Mike. But coaches wouldn"t try to cheat would they? LOL

Kent