Unreported Substitute

[AtlUmpSteve]

Okay, the wording could be better. But, the coach's argument is incorrect, despite his effort; as long as there has been no intervening pitch after an unreported sub makes a play, 4.6.8 applies, and 4.6.9 does not.

Again, the issue isn't when the player is in the game; the substitution rule says she is after taking a position and a pitch or play happens. Nothing anywhere says that makes her reported; and until she is reported or appealed (effectively being reported by the opposing team), she is still unreported.

To suggest she is not in the game would allow the starter to re-enter without being charged a re-entry. Obviously not; and for the starter to be out, someone else is obviously in. That person is a sub; but that doesn't make her reported if she isn't. She is officially in the game; and her status is unreported, still.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Okay, the wording could be better. But, the coach's argument is incorrect, despite his effort; as long as there has been no intervening pitch after an unreported sub makes a play, 4.6.8 applies, and 4.6.9 does not.

Why not? Are not all of the requirement met considering the present wording?

Is the player not in the game unreported? Has the protest not been made after the pitch, legal or illegal?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the official ruling, it is just that the rule does not, which will be changed.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Gee, you might think this was some kind of SAT or IQ test instead of a simple umpire test [scenario].

I was chastised for reading too much into the question on the construction of the official bat.

We can't choose which rules to interpret literally while ignoring others. That's why the language of the rule book and the test questions is so important. With 40k umpires to maintain, the one common and critical factor is language.

The agrument that "everyone knows what was meant" simply doesn't fly. Best example is the rule change for the fast and modified pitch game where a ball is called on the batter instead of an illegal pitch, because it "was an illegal pitch and were always intended to be a ball on the batter only." So if I had called that play in the last of the seventh inning and allowed the winning run to score from 3rd base as an illegal pitch, and it was protested by the losing team, how would the ruling come out? Like it's written or how it was intended?

Ted

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

The agrument that "everyone knows what was meant" simply doesn't fly. Best example is the rule change for the fast and modified pitch game where a ball is called on the batter instead of an illegal pitch, because it "was an illegal pitch and were always intended to be a ball on the batter only." So if I had called that play in the last of the seventh inning and allowed the winning run to score from 3rd base as an illegal pitch, and it was protested by the losing team, how would the ruling come out? Like it's written or how it was intended?

Ted

Don't know, Ted. How many times did you allow a BR advance to 1B on a D3K with two outs and no one on 1B? Until a couple years ago, the rule book did not support such a thing.

How many times have you seen an umpire not call a batter out on a ball not above the batter's head and caught in flight that wasn't a foul tip?

There is an entire section in the ASA rule book titled, "TOUCHING BASES IN LEGAL ORDER", yet there is no mention in the rules what that order is.

In Rule 5, to score a run, a player must touch first, second, third and home base. Nowhere does it state in which order they must be touched. If a BR hit the ball to the gap and touched home, second, third and then first would you score the run? The player completed the task required in accordance to what is written in the rules, so would it be overturned upon protest if you scored the run?

If you think my examples are ridiculous, I agree.

Not everything can be reduced to print. Yes, some things get missed or all possible scenarios cannot be noted. Also, because the rules are so intertwined, some possible issues are missed when a change is made in one part of the book that affects another. That is why we have clinics and rules clarifications.

That is why the discussions on boards like this can be so educational. There have been rule changes proposed and some accepted that came directly from this or a similar discussion board.

[ronald]

How did a thumb down get in an earliler post of mine?

Never mine. Must have hit that radial button by mistake. I did not want it there.

Thanks, Ron

[Tru_in_Blu]

The good news is that things are being corrected. Sometimes it takes a while. But when passages or test questions come up that elicit differing interpretations or opinions, that's a hint that the wording might need some refining.

Since I've only been umpiring a few years [played many more] I tend to deal with the language more literally than someone who's been around for a while and knows "how it was intended to be". Such that if I look up a rule to try to understand it better, I only have the language as written without knowing what the intent was or should be.

I'd agree with an earlier opinion that poorly worded test questions and/or responses are more accidental than intentional. As a "national" organization with world-wide reach and thousands of interpreters [i.e. umpires, coaches, etc.] I'd hope for fewer confusing passages. I will give credit that in the few years of my darkside experience, that I've seen some progress in that regard.

Ted

[Tru_in_Blu]

Howdy,

This relates to ASA rules.

I'm back on this subject with a question. I've been updating some files I have on certain sections of the rules that I think I need to stay current with. As I was entering 4.6.C, I came across a quandry.

3. When they bat and reach first base safely and are discovered: a. BEFORE the next pitch; b. Before the defense has left the field of play; c. Before the umpires have left the field of play.
EFFECT: All runners will return to the last base occupied prior to the batted ball. The U.S. is officially in the game and called out. All other outs that occurred on this play stand.

4. When discovered after completing their turn at bat and: a. AFTER the next pitch; b. Before the defense has left the field; c. Before the umpires have left the field of play.
EFFECT: The U.S. is officially in the game. Any advance of runner(s) as a result of the play is legal.

To me, it seems like the difference between 3 & 4 should be regarding whether a pitch [legal/illegal] has occurred.

Consider in 3, if there is a runner on third base with less than 2 outs, and an U.S. comes to bat and hits a SacFly to score the runner. Since the batter/U.S. did not reach first base safely, rule 3 cannot be invoked. Even if they are discovered and protested before the next pitch. The U.S. is already out, but in the game. But can you return the runner to 3B?

I believe that is the intent of this rule, but if the U.S./batter doesn't reach 1B safely, it can't be applied.

Now in 4, I think the wording is clearer where is says "after completing their turn at bat". I believe if that wording were transposed into 3, it wouldn't be an issue.

This another one of those "we know how it should be called" rules? The wording from 2008 and earlier is also a little glitchy.

Thanx,

Ted