What do you have?

rwest · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 09, 2012, 01:01pm

Here's the lineup. Assuming slow pitch and not using the Extra Player.

Abel
Baker
Charlie
David
Edward
Frank
George
Henry
Isaiah
Jacob

Subs
----
Kevin

In the 2nd inning Kevin subs in for Baker. In the 3rd inning Baker re-enters. In the 4th inning Kevin again subs in for Baker. In the 5th inning Baker returns again. Baker hits a single driving in R1 on 3rd. Baker is on first base when the defense protests Baker's re-entry.

What do you have and how do you handle it? ASA rules apply.

rwest · #2 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 09, 2012, 01:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Illegal re-entry, Baker DQ, game over, no run.

Why game over?

IRISHMAFIA · #3 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 09, 2012, 01:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest

Why game over?

No legal substitute. Of course, a decent umpire would never allow this to occur.

rwest · #4 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 09, 2012, 01:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No legal substitute.

This isn't an ejection. This is a DQ. SP can play with 9.

EsqUmp · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 09, 2012, 05:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No legal substitute. Of course, a decent umpire would never allow this to occur.

No more shorthand rule?

Of course a decent umpire wouldn't declare a forfeit.

IRISHMAFIA · #6 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 09, 2012, 06:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest

This isn't an ejection. This is a DQ. SP can play with 9.

You are absolutely correct, I jumped the gun. But still, a decent umpire would not permit this to happen.

Crabby_Bob · #7 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:32am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest

[...] In the 5th inning Baker returns again. Baker hits a single driving in R1 on 3rd. Baker is on first base when the defense protests Baker's re-entry.

What do you have and how do you handle it? ASA rules apply.

A decent umpire wouldn't let Baker re-enter. Baker could be an unreported substitute (who happens to be illegal in this case), which should not be acted upon if the umpire notices it. Let the defense protest.

rwest · #8 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 10, 2012, 08:05am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

A decent umpire wouldn't let Baker re-enter. Baker could be an unreported substitute (who happens to be illegal in this case), which should not be acted upon if the umpire notices it. Let the defense protest.

A decent umpire would notice this and try to prevent it. "Coach, you're sure you want to do this? Baker can't re-enter legally." If the coach insists do we allow him to and then wait for the protest? In ASA the umpire is not allowed to rule on this until a team appeals. I believe all we can legally do is inform the coach of the infraction and if he insists allow it. Maybe we could do so in such a loud voice as to give a clue to the other team? Or just inform the other team "Baker is re-entering again." and hope the other team realizes what has just happened. Maybe put a slight emphasis on the word "Again". I'm joking of course. We can't do anything to tip off the other team of an infraction that must be appealed by the defense.

IRISHMAFIA · #9 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 10, 2012, 12:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest

A decent umpire would notice this and try to prevent it. "Coach, you're sure you want to do this? Baker can't re-enter legally." If the coach insists do we allow him to and then wait for the protest? In ASA the umpire is not allowed to rule on this until a team appeals. I believe all we can legally do is inform the coach of the infraction and if he insists allow it. Maybe we could do so in such a loud voice as to give a clue to the other team? Or just inform the other team "Baker is re-entering again." and hope the other team realizes what has just happened. Maybe put a slight emphasis on the word "Again". I'm joking of course. We can't do anything to tip off the other team of an infraction that must be appealed by the defense.

Never going to permit something like this to occur if I know it shouldn't and is a violation. Coach doesn't like it, I can always talk to the new head coach.

CecilOne · #10 (**permalink**) Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:49pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne
Illegal re-entry, Baker DQ, game over, no run.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest

Why game over?

My mistake, thinking DQ was sub required.

EsqUmp · #11 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 11, 2012, 08:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Never going to permit something like this to occur if I know it shouldn't and is a violation. Coach doesn't like it, I can always talk to the new head coach.

Most codes to encourage umpires to prevent violations. I get that. But where is the responsibility for the coaches' to do what is correct? Have you or any other umpires you know made the incorrect ruling or not permitted something that was legal?

I have seen this far too often. Of course, shame on the official for not knowing the rules, but I'm realistic and as we see here on the forum, not every ruling is correct, either because we don't know it, shoot from the hip, or confuse codes.

More than once I've had to address lineup changes with an umpire who didn't allow a team to have the DP play defense and leave the Flex in the game.

I like to prevent headaches whenever possible in most circumstances. But why do we go out of our way to help a coach not commit a violation when they coach questions our strike zone, judgment, rules knowledge, etc.? The quicker the coach is to question our calls, the quicker they probably are to ask for our help on a rule.

The rule book takes care of violations by allowing a protest and the implication of penalties.

Many of us say, "Well, I'm comfortable doing it because I know the rules." The problem is that there are so many others who say that who really do not know the rules.

Saying something like, "Coach, it's your decision, but you may want to consult with your assistant and/or the rule book before doing that" usually makes the coach question themselves strongly enough that they just don't make the change. I will never tell a coach, "No, you can't do that" if they insist though. Umpires aren't there to bail out coaches for dumb decisions. They'll learn soon enough.

shipwreck · #12 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 12, 2012, 08:58pm

Why then do we allow batting out of order to happen? I have seen games where for some strange reason I know who should be batting after a particular batter. If the incorrect batter comes up to bat and we know they are incorrect, do we tell them or the coach or the wrong batter that they shouldn't be up? I don't. I believe this is coaching. I guess this is different than the OP.
Dave

IRISHMAFIA · #13 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 12, 2012, 09:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by shipwreck

Why then do we allow batting out of order to happen? I have seen games where for some strange reason I know who should be batting after a particular batter. If the incorrect batter comes up to bat and we know they are incorrect, do we tell them or the coach or the wrong batter that they shouldn't be up? I don't. I believe this is coaching. I guess this is different than the OP.
Dave

Different issue. BOO involves players who are legally in the game and nothing involving the umpire.

A player attempting to illegally re-enter the game or not reporting is a direct attempt to circumvent the rules which includes the umpire's involvement and maintenance of the line up.

EsqUmp · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 08:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by shipwreck

Why then do we allow batting out of order to happen? I have seen games where for some strange reason I know who should be batting after a particular batter. If the incorrect batter comes up to bat and we know they are incorrect, do we tell them or the coach or the wrong batter that they shouldn't be up? I don't. I believe this is coaching. I guess this is different than the OP.
Dave

There is a blurred line between "preventative officiating" and "coaching."

I think that a lot of people "prevent" the problem because they are helping the team out. What they don't realize is that they are pissing off the other team who was looking forward to getting the benefit of knowing the rules and protesting the game. I lean more and more toward letting the teams screw it up. They think we screw up all the time. Let the screw up and maybe a few more of them will be humbled a bit.

MNBlue · #15 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 10:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

There is a blurred line between "preventative officiating" and "coaching."

I think that a lot of people "prevent" the problem because they are helping the team out. What they don't realize is that they are pissing off the other team who was looking forward to getting the benefit of knowing the rules and protesting the game. I lean more and more toward letting the teams screw it up. They think we screw up all the time. Let the screw up and maybe a few more of them will be humbled a bit.

I understand your point and have had this debate with numerous people. An overwhelming majority would rather know they are making a mistake before they make it than after. Not one person said, "Let then screw up so I can appeal and get their player out of the game."

I am in favor of telling the coach at the time that what they are about to do is illegal and then let them decide. If they want to break the rules at that point, that is on them.