Illegal offensive player and illegal defensive player...

[SNIPERBBB]

Rule interp this year for NFHS....

This was brought up at our meeting the other night and I would like to see what you guys think of this

SITUATION 6: R1 is at third base and R2 is at first base with no outs. B3, an illegal offensive player, hits the ball to F6, an illegal defensive player, who turns a 6-4-3 double play. R1 crosses the plate. At the end of playing action, before the next pitch, both coaches come out and appeal the opponent’s illegal player. COMMENT: Since this situation is unlikely to occur, there is no specific rule/penalty to address it; therefore, the umpire must make a decision as in 10-2-3g. The most likely rulings would appear to advantage one team over the other and it is impossible to invoke penalties that are completely “offsetting.” There-fore, one possible “hybrid” ruling is presented for consideration. ONE POSSIBLE RULING: Since both teams violated the illegal substitute rule and the violations were discovered before the next pitch, the umpire shall restrict both the illegal offensive and defensive players to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game with legal substitutes replacing them. It would seem “fair” to call B3 out and return both R1 and R2 to third base and first base, respectively. The game would continue with one out and the player following the illegal batter as the next batter. This penalty incorporates portions from the two individual penalties. (2-57-3; 3-4-2 Penalty; 3-4-3 Penalty; 10-2-3g)

[Umpteenth]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

...B3, an illegal offensive player, hits the ball to F6, an illegal defensive player...

This is a key piece of information. If the ball were hit to F6, then F6 was not identified as an illegal defensive player before the next pitch, because the ball could not have been batted in that direction without a pitch occurring. In fact, with 2 runners on base, it is likely that F6 was in the game at the start of the half inning. So, you should only have to rule on B3, the illegal batter.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Umpteenth

This is a key piece of information. If the ball were hit to F6, then F6 was not identified as an illegal defensive player before the next pitch, because the ball could not have been batted in that direction without a pitch occurring. In fact, with 2 runners on base, it is likely that F6 was in the game at the start of the half inning. So, you should only have to rule on B3, the illegal batter.

Quick comment - isn't F6 illegal no matter when she is discovered?
The "before the next pitch" stuff deals with the the pitch following the play that involved the illegal player.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Umpteenth

This is a key piece of information. If the ball were hit to F6, then F6 was not identified as an illegal defensive player before the next pitch, because the ball could not have been batted in that direction without a pitch occurring. In fact, with 2 runners on base, it is likely that F6 was in the game at the start of the half inning. So, you should only have to rule on B3, the illegal batter.

Illegal or unreported defensive players do not have to be appealed before any pitch is thrown in an inning. They merely have to be appealed after making a play, and before the next pitch is thrown.

[DaveASA/FED]

Well since this is an official NFHS interp. I would say if it ever happened in a game I was umpiring I would rule as they have noted. My personal take on it? I think as it is listed it seems "fair" if you can do that. Each team violated a rule, each "lost" something because of that violation. Defense lost one out, offense lost a run.

I also don't think it has a very high likelihood of ever happening, but neither do a lot of things that we discuss here but if they do we have hashed them out prior to being surprised on the field.

Sniper,
They did appeal prior to the next pitch. If you look at the illegal sub section it allows that illegal player to be in the game for any amount of time prior to an appeal. A smart coach will see it but not appeal until that player has been involved in a play, so the penalty of "erasing" the out they were involved with will benefit their team. 3-4 Art 3:

ART. 3 . . . Illegal defensive player is discovered before the next pitch to either
team when:
a. involved in a play with batted ball;
b. a non-batted ball is handled or touched by an illegal substitute that leads to
a runner being put out;
c. a non-batted ball is handled or touched by an illegal substitute that alters
the play, but no runner is put out (i.e., on an overthrow on a stealing runner,
the illegal substitute retrieves ball and prevents runner from advancing
farther).
PENALTIES: (Art. 3)
1. The illegal player/substitute shall be restricted to the dugout/bench for the
remainder of the game. (Art. 3a, b) Team on offense has option of taking
the play or accepting the penalty (out is nullified, runners return to base
occupied at time of pitch.) (Art. 3c) Umpire may award bases based on
his/her judgment and the circumstances concerning the play. (Art. 3a) The
batter is allowed to bat again with the same count. (Art. 3b, c) The pitch is
canceled if it is a strike or stands if it is a ball.
2. After another pitch, all play stands but the illegal player/substitute is still
restricted to the dugout/bench for the remainder of the game.
3. Any time a non-batted ball is handled or touched by an illegal substitute
and does not lead to a runner being put out or alter a play, the play stands
and the illegal substitute is restricted to the dugout/bench.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Well since this is an official NFHS interp. I would say if it ever happened in a game I was umpiring I would rule as they have noted. My personal take on it? I think as it is listed it seems "fair" if you can do that. Each team violated a rule, each "lost" something because of that violation. Defense lost one out, offense lost a run.

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.

[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...