Correct batter is on base??

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

7-1-1&2 (Penalties note # 6)

I saw that part but couldn't find a line that actually said skip ahead to the next batter if the proper batter is on base.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

The only prohibition against multiple changes is a statement that you don't accept future changes for the current change. You don't accept S1 for B1, and S1 is "going to re-enter". In that case, you accept S1 for B1, repeat it to the coach, and tell him that S1 is in the game until he reports B1 as re-entering when it happens.

Maybe I've been misinterpreting the NFHS sentence "Projected substitutions are not allowed." Of course I wouldn't take a future change like the one you described, but I thought it also meant substitute batters should only be reported when it's their turn to bat.

[Dakota]

A projected substitution is one that is not yet made, but will be made at some point in the future. One that is actually made at the time the umpire is informed is not a projected substitution.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

I saw that part but couldn't find a line that actually said skip ahead to the next batter if the proper batter is on base.

OK, but if the batter due up is a runner, and remains on base as #6 says, who, then, does bat? You merely skip the runner on base and go to the next batter in the order.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I often preach take one change at a time. That does not mean an umpire refuses to take a change just because an involved player is not part of the very next play.

It means that the umpire should control the exchange. IOW, don't let the coach just rattle off multiple changes or offer them in groups (i.e., "Blue, 17, 9 & 6 in for 24, 3 & 2). Force the coach to slow down and give them to you one at a time (i.e., Coach: Blue, 17 for 24; Ump: Okay. Coach: 9 for 3; Ump: Okay. etc.)

[AtlUmpSteve]

Not disagreeing with that method, Mike.

The new NCAA rule change on substitutions makes my point, I think. According to the rule, a sub is not in the game until all of the next 4 points are complete: 1) the coach reports the change to the plate umpire, 2) the plate umpire accepts the change (preferably repeating both names and numbers), 3) the plate umpire actually records the change (preferably showing the coach and getting agreement that this is the change desired), and 4) the plate umpire announces the change to the official scorer. If the reporting coach realizes that isn't the change desired, it can be stopped at any point in that process even after recorded, as long as not yet announced.

No way does it make sense to perform all 4 steps for one change, then all 4 steps for the 2nd change, then ...... As a practical matter, you take one at a time thru recording (report, accept, record, then report accept, record, etc.), then announce all subs at the same time. You maintain control, you make sure you have it right; then you finalize and announce all subs at the same time.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Not disagreeing with that method, Mike.

The new NCAA rule change on substitutions makes my point, I think. According to the rule, a sub is not in the game until all of the next 4 points are complete: 1) the coach reports the change to the plate umpire, 2) the plate umpire accepts the change (preferably repeating both names and numbers), 3) the plate umpire actually records the change (preferably showing the coach and getting agreement that this is the change desired), and 4) the plate umpire announces the change to the official scorer. If the reporting coach realizes that isn't the change desired, it can be stopped at any point in that process even after recorded, as long as not yet announced.

No way does it make sense to perform all 4 steps for one change, then all 4 steps for the 2nd change, then ...... As a practical matter, you take one at a time thru recording (report, accept, record, then report accept, record, etc.), then announce all subs at the same time. You maintain control, you make sure you have it right; then you finalize and announce all subs at the same time.

Nothing like a little overkill to make up for a coach's incompetence.

[AtlUmpSteve]

This is their (NCAA) standard response to any time a coach either 1) abuses a situation, 2) claims the umpire got it it wrong, or 3) over-analyzes a rule. The NCAA comes back with a new rule and countless detail to regulate the situation.

Somewhere, a coach misstated a change, and swore the umpire got it wrong, not that she misstated it. Somewhere, a coach said 3 for 6, the umpire nodded, and before he could check his lineup to say "coach, I can't take that change, 3 has already been in the game", the opposing coach was already appealing an illegal sub, because the sub was "reported". And, despite countless years of umpires handling that situation, the NCAA overanalyzed the wording of the rule and said something had to change.

Years ago (2003 by my research), ASA made an editorial change saying a sub isn't in the game, reported or not, until a pitch or play occurs. That enabled umpires to use preventative officiating, and coaches to correct clerical, or even verbal errors. That has since been modified further, to include the requirement that the sub take an offensive or defensive position; that stopped a dead ball appeal from making the sub "in the game". Again, the result of a defensive team hearing in illegal substitution, immediately making a frivolous dead ball appeal (a play), then appealing the illegal sub; all before the umpire had a chance to look at his lineup card and record (or refuse) the change. In ASA, it didn't (and doesn't) matter if the coach swears the umpire recorded it wrong; the coach is responsible to make legal substitutions, and has always had the right to confirm that the recorded change is what he reported.

But, the NCAA took the approach of mandating a detailed sequence that is intended to make the umpire and coach interaction a full detailed choreographed sequence. We are NOT to accept the common "3 for 6" from the 3rd base coaching box, with 3 standing at the plate ready to pinch hit, or running onto the field to run; even if it is clear and obvious. We must have the coach come to our side while we check our lineup card, show her the lineup card and point out while repeating "#3, Sally Smith for #6, Julie Jones, this spot in the order, right coach?", before recording it, and then reporting it to the official scorer, opposing coach, and announcers (if any).

Granted, there are times you might want to do that; like when the change(s) you are given don't look or sound right. Certainly use preventative officiating, fix (stop) the correctable errors. But to mandate that process, now named RARA (Report, Accept, Record, Announce) for routine changes; yep, overkill, to either protect against an unscrupulous coach, or make up for an incompetent coach.