Unreported Substitute

[DeRef]

Originally Posted by ronald

Take Mike's play and add that in the fourth the coach does not do anything but in the seventh decides to make a protest after a defensive play by the unreported sub. Sorry Mike could not resist any more. Bored and ennui.

Any thing different?

I was at the clinic and there was some confusion about the wording of the new rule and its interpretation as to when an unreported sub is officially in the game.

The problem with the discussion at the CAR clinic was that there were way to many "what if's". My favorite one was "what if a spectators dog runs onto the field and is hit with the ball. The ball is deflected where it hits the umpire in the head. The umpire falls and trips the runner. What do you have?"

As for the discussion, I think the simple way of looking at this is that the unreported sub does not enter the game until he is reported or appealed. The coach can make a mistake on the original line-up, the player can play the entire game and yet, in the bottom of the seventh, the opponent can still appeal that they are an unreported sub.

[ronald]

I believe the clinics are an appropriate place for umps to ask what if questions. They are doubts those umps have and to get them answered is all positive. Those that know the answer have to "put up with" the learners.. If everyone got a casebook and read the ASA clarifications and plays, then the number of what ifs would be limited to advanced questions and concepts.

On the what happens if a runner runs into the ump or the ump runs into the runner, the UIC had to help out the presenter in providing the correct ruling. It was not Mike.

As for a runner running into the ump and then getting tagged out, the out stands. It is in the casebook somewhere. That had to be clarified.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by ronald

I believe the clinics are an appropriate place for umps to ask what if questions. They are doubts those umps have and to get them answered is all positive. Those that know the answer have to "put up with" the learners.. If everyone got a casebook and read the ASA clarifications and plays, then the number of what ifs would be limited to advanced questions and concepts.

On the what happens if a runner runs into the ump or the ump runs into the runner, the UIC had to help out the presenter in providing the correct ruling. It was not Mike.

As for a runner running into the ump and then getting tagged out, the out stands. It is in the casebook somewhere. That had to be clarified.

Yeah, it's in the rulebook, too. There are two defined instances of umpire interference; in every other case, the umpire is part of the field (sometimes paraphrased as a big pebble). That shouldn't require any added clarification. It is also clear this isn't a reversal of a call, a delayed call, or something not already covered in the rules (yeah, it's covered, because it isn't umpire interference). So, you cannot use judgment, or a "God rule".

Guess what. The play stands. Thanks for playing.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ronald

I believe the clinics are an appropriate place for umps to ask what if questions. They are doubts those umps have and to get them answered is all positive. Those that know the answer have to "put up with" the learners.. If everyone got a casebook and read the ASA clarifications and plays, then the number of what ifs would be limited to advanced questions and concepts.

It isn't so much that "what if" factor, but the level of absurdity some of these questions can go. There are also times where it becomes like a media event at the White House. If the reporter doesn't like the first response, they keep asking the same questions or try to put another slant trying to justify an inaccurate perception.

Ron saw that side when discussing the errant throw issue on the double base. I don't know how many times one clinician or another stated that the throw needs to pull the defender away from the base and into foul territory for it to be considered an errant throw as it pertains to the rules. It can get frustrating not only to the clinician, but the others in the audience.

Ron is correct, a clinic is the place to get the questions answered. Unfortunately, there are a few who are looking to try and catch a rule or clinician in a gaff. When there is a questionable response, the clinicians get together with the book and make sure the umpires are given the correct answer. And I'm talking to the point of calling KR. That should be the end of it. If you still disagree, address the clinician during a break or afterwards.

[ronald]

That is (clinicians got together) how it was handled at CAR. They got together and Mark came back with a statement.

I sure hope (I am naive) other umps do not try to one up or catch the staff in a boo boo.

Vis a vis the errant throw, many just could not visual what errant really meant and missed the intent of the rule. Hopefully, everyone now (those at the clinic) has a clear idea of what errant means. If not, then we have language barriers that might not be overcome.

Ron

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It isn't so much that "what if" factor, but the level of absurdity some of these questions can go. ...................
It can get frustrating not only to the clinician, but the others in the audience.

Ron is correct, a clinic is the place to get the questions answered. Unfortunately, there are a few who are looking to try and catch a rule or clinician in a gaff. When there is a questionable response, the clinicians get together with the book and make sure the umpires are given the correct answer. And I'm talking to the point of calling KR. That should be the end of it. If you still disagree, address the clinician during a break or afterwards.

Or at least buy them a beer to continue the third world discussions.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by DeRef

As for the discussion, I think the simple way of looking at this is that the unreported sub does not enter the game until he is reported or appealed. The coach can make a mistake on the original line-up, the player can play the entire game and yet, in the bottom of the seventh, the opponent can still appeal that they are an unreported sub.

Sorry, have to disagree with what you have stated. The substitution rule is that a sub is officially in the game, reported or not, when they take a position (offensive or defensive), and a pitch (legal or illegal) or a play (dead ball appeal) occurs. If reported (and a legal sub), that's the end of it.

If unreported, they are still in the game, but still unreported. And they stay unreported, until either 1) they are reported, or 2) it is appealed that they are unreported. Anything they do immediately prior to being appealed may still have a penalty; because they are still unreported.

It strikes me that the misconception (at least the one you stated) is between understanding the significant difference in being in the game and being unreported (while being in the game). The thing is the rule really hasn't changed except that the unreported sub, once appealed, is now legally in the game, not ejected. If you understood the rule before, there is no reason to not understand it now.

[DeRef]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Sorry, have to disagree with what you have stated. The substitution rule is that a sub is officially in the game, reported or not, when they take a position (offensive or defensive), and a pitch (legal or illegal) or a play (dead ball appeal) occurs. If reported (and a legal sub), that's the end of it.

If unreported, they are still in the game, but still unreported. And they stay unreported, until either 1) they are reported, or 2) it is appealed that they are unreported. Anything they do immediately prior to being appealed may still have a penalty; because they are still unreported.

It strikes me that the misconception (at least the one you stated) is between understanding the significant difference in being in the game and being unreported (while being in the game). The thing is the rule really hasn't changed except that the unreported sub, once appealed, is now legally in the game, not ejected. If you understood the rule before, there is no reason to not understand it now.

Agreed... You wrote exactly what I meant.