I have been guilty of the same thing......it is not going to mean the end of the world.

I liked it when we did not allow illegal things to take place.....IJS.

Joel

Yes it does in my opinion
 

You are preventing the defense from getting an out. If R1 misses 2nd base, we don't tell her to go back and touch 2nd. We don't give a way that she missed 2nd. Same situation. Both are appeal plays by the offended team. What are you going to do if this was on defense and you noticed it. The other team may be holding on to the fact that there is a unreported defensive sub. They may want to pull out that card when it benefits them which is their right.

If by "both" you meant the unreported sub v the missed base, no, they aren't both appeal plays. The unreported sub is handled as a protest.

Poor choice of words on ASA's part
 

The rule book says protest but it is not really a protest. A protest by definition is a formal request to review an umpires rule interpretation. This is an appeal its just not called that by ASA.

If you say so... Me? I go by what is in the book.

You Mean Like
 

9.1. Protests...

A. Misinterpretation of a playing rule....
B. Illegal Player
C. Ineligible Player

No where is an unreported sub listed as a protest in 9.1. In the definition and in rule 9.1 (both are just as much a part of the rule book as 4.6) this is not identified as a protest. ASA either needs to add unreported sub to 9.1 and change the definition or add unreported sub to the list of appeal plays.

We are, however, arguing semantics. Whether we call it an appeal or a protest, I have no doubt that we will both enforce the rule correctly.

I too go by the rule book. I just realize that the rule book is not perfect. It was written by man and we make mistakes. It would be no less perfect if I was the author! :)

Well, the main difference is that the book clearly states that the umpire cannot rule on an appeal play until the appeal is made, so if an unreported sub was an appeal, this entire thread would have been 2 posts long! :D

Were's the fun in that! :)
 

The rule book also clearly states that this is brought up as a protest by the offended team. You don't rule proactively on protests. As umpires we wait until they are brought to our "attention".

Actually, it's not semantics, and is the crux of the issue.

If this was an appeal, we have very specific instructions about when and how to handle appeals --- and I would STOP doing what I would do now, which is trying to prevent the situation from occurring if I notice it first.

HOWEVER, if it is a protest - we are told to prevent any possible protestable events before they happen ... which is what I am doing now when I try to put the right player in place.

But you're right that unreported sub is not REALLY specified as either, so based on which you feel it fits better and absent specific verbiage from ASA, you can justify either side of this argument.

That's not true at all. You don't just allow a protestable event to slide by - you try to fix it if possible beforehand.

Good Points
 

All are very good points. Since there is possibility for an out, I'm treating this as an appeal and not give anything away.

Ah.

IMHO, if you do it for one team, you must do it for the other team. Are you that good in recognizing all nine players and their substitutes on both teams? If you miss such an infraction by the other team, and it it properly appealed (protested), how are you going to rule?

And I wouldn't have a problem doing it for the other team. In fact, if the opposing head coach complained that I jumped the gun by preventing him/her from appealing/protesting/complaining/whatever, I'll let him/her know, "Coach, I would've done the same for you if I had recognized the problem."

No, I'm not that good. And I would rule just as the book tells me if I don't catch the violation and the other coach appeals/protests/complains/whatever.

If the crux of the issue is the preventing the opposing team from gaining an opportune out, then why are umpires told they should intervene to prevent illegal substitutions? Isn't an illegal batter who gets on base and is then appealed/protested/complained/whatever disqualified and called out? The only difference is the disqualification penalty. Wouldn't the out+disqualification be more of a benefit to the offended team than just the out?

Look, I really can go either way with this. If the official guidance from OKC is that we must allow a substitute to play unreported if we happen to notice it, then so be it. But I prefer to consider it as preventive umpiring, no different than informing a coach when he/she is about to conduct his/her fourth defensive conference, "Coach, you do realize that you'll have to remove your pitcher with this one, right?"

I've not been told that
 

I've been told to inform the coach in a subtle way that he can't do that but that if he insists allow it. For example: "Coach, do you really want to do that? Are you sure?" The reasoning is the exact one given for this discussion. If you don't allow it you don't give the defense an opportunity for an out. I understand and can sympathize with your point of view. However, sometimes when the book says that can't do something doesn't mean we prevent them from doing it. For example, not allowed to return to a base missed or left early after they have scored. The rule book says they can't but if they decide to go back, we let them and I still have an out on a dead ball appeal.

Illegal, but reported, substitutes are completely different from unreported substitutes. Why? Because if it is reported, the action IS brought to my attention AND if I don't tell the coach it is illegal, I am making an illegal entry into MY line up card. Not telling the coach makes me an accessory, so to speak, in his illegal action, and could make it appear that I was perhaps even setting him up.

The problem of me "self-notifying" about unreported substitutes is precisely BECAUSE I cannot detect all that may happen in this regard. Therefore, by self-reporting I am giving a player/team an advantage because they have players who are physically distinctive in some way, AND I leave myself open to a coach believing I am showing partiality.

IOW, both are in effect preventative umpiring, even though the action by me is to intervene in one case and ignore it in another.