Illegal offensive player and illegal defensive player...

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by youngump

It says one possible ruling and doesn't seem to constrain the results to that approach. The way I'd prefer to see it go: these are going to be enforced in the order they occurred. If the offense comes out and tells me we had an illegal defensive player and they want to repeat the play, then we're going to do that and I no longer have an illegal offensive player who hit the ball. Similar logic can be applied if the defense gets out there first.

I understand that's just one possible application but it seems the most fair to me after considering all the rules pertaining to this situation.

My question for you is: What rule are you using to justify ignoring the second legitimate request to appeal an illegal player? The whoever gets there first approach doesn't seem like a great idea, offense is already on the field giving them an unfair advantage, then the defensive coach might have to trip them so they can get there first... so it's a race which coach is quicker that's who get thier appeal considered? Doesn't seem fair and equal enforcement of the rules to me, but that's just me. Also I am not sure how you would win a protest if you have no rules to support not ruling on an illegal player when properly appealed. I know in NFHS protests are at the states discretion but still that's how I try to think through a wierd ruling, could I support this in a protest situation? Am I directly violating any rules by this ruling?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I understand that's just one possible application but it seems the most fair to me after considering all the rules pertaining to this situation.

My question for you is: What rule are you using to justify ignoring the second legitimate request to appeal an illegal player? The whoever gets there first approach doesn't seem like a great idea, offense is already on the field giving them an unfair advantage, then the defensive coach might have to trip them so they can get there first... so it's a race which coach is quicker that's who get thier appeal considered? Doesn't seem fair and equal enforcement of the rules to me, but that's just me. Also I am not sure how you would win a protest if you have no rules to support not ruling on an illegal player when properly appealed. I know in NFHS protests are at the states discretion but still that's how I try to think through a wierd ruling, could I support this in a protest situation? Am I directly violating any rules by this ruling?

I'm not going to ignore the request. I'm going to honor it. The batter who has not hit the ball is an illegal player. Replace her with a legal player.
If the offense asks for time and complains about the defensive player, you make the ruling I've made (because nothing else has happened). Now when that's all settled down, the defensive coach comes out and makes the complaint that the offensive player is illegal. In my mind it's a little weird to now go back and treat it as all one combined illegal play.

[DaveASA/FED]

Wierd yes! Will it ever happen......well it must have to NFHS to publish this rule interp.

But the way I see it DID happen as one combined illegal play. I think you have to rule on it that way. They were both illegal and both have done something to cause us to enforce the illegal player rule....I think we have to consider and rule on both actions. Not sure how we would get around it.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Not sure how we would get around it.

The ability to slap coaches/scorekeepers silly would help...