Unrep Sub: Say Something or Stay Mum?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

IMHO, if you do it for one team, you must do it for the other team.

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."

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

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?

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?"

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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?

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.

[Dakota]

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

I understand your position. There are two theories on this. One is as you state: don't let the coach make an illegal substitution.

However, what if he is insistent on making the sub even if you clearly and explicitly inform him it is illegal? Are you going to allow it? Some would say no, because it is illegal and we should prevent it. Be careful with that approach. It should be all or nothing, in my opinion. Do we prevent every other illegal act? No. Do we prevent a runner from returning to a base left too soon when by rule it is illegal to do so? No. We just honor the dead ball appeal and call her out if warranted. The rule book says something is illegal but it doesn't say that we as umpires must physically prevent these illegal actions. We just rule on them when called upon to do so.

Some would say that if the coach insists on making an illegal entry even after being explicitly informed of its illegality that he should be ejected for USC. I see their point and could defend it on the field. The coach would be playing against the spirit of the game.

However, I use the second theory, which is either very subtly or very explicitly inform the coach the sub is not legal by rule. If he persists on making the sub, allow him because to do otherwise prevents the defense the opportunity to get an out. That's how I've been instructed to handle this situation.

Of course the argument can be and probably has been made that the rule is there to catch those instances we missed. I agree but I also believe we must be consistent. If we are going to prevent something just because it is illegal, then we must do so in all cases.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

Do we prevent every other illegal act? No. Do we prevent a runner from returning to a base left too soon when by rule it is illegal to do so? No. We just honor the dead ball appeal and call her out if warranted.

I hear where you're coming from ... but I'd be careful with this logic. It is not "illegal" to leave a base too soon any more than it's illegal to put the ball in play and not make it to first before they throw you out. It's not illegal --- it's just that you're liable to be put out. Lumping acts performed on the bases for which you might end up being put out together with acts specifically listed as "illegal" in the book is inappropriate, imho.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I hear where you're coming from ... but I'd be careful with this logic. It is not "illegal" to leave a base too soon any more than it's illegal to put the ball in play and not make it to first before they throw you out. It's not illegal --- it's just that you're liable to be put out. Lumping acts performed on the bases for which you might end up being put out together with acts specifically listed as "illegal" in the book is inappropriate, imho.

That's not what I am talking about. You can not return to a base left too soon under certain circumstances. This by rule is illegal.

For example.

R1 on 1B leaves with the pitch. Fly ball to center filed caught for an out. Prior to reaching 2nd R1 stops, turns around and is on her way back to 1B when the throw goes over the 1B fence. The umpire waits to give the runner time to complete her base running responsibilities. R1 does not continue to first but instead turns and heads for 2nd. The umpire calls dead ball and awards her two bases. She touches 2nd and proceeds to 3rd, when the 3rd base coach says go back and touch 2nd and then 1B before coming back to 3rd. By rule once you have reached one base beyond the base left too soon and the ball has become dead, it is illegal by rule to return to the base left too soon. Are you as an umpire going to physically prevent this from happening even though by rule it is illegal? No different in my mind than preventing a coach from making an illegal substitution. We prevent them all or none and just rule on them when required to by rule.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

That's not what I am talking about. You can not return to a base left too soon under certain circumstances. This by rule is illegal.

For example.

R1 on 1B leaves with the pitch. Fly ball to center filed caught for an out. Prior to reaching 2nd R1 stops, turns around and is on her way back to 1B when the throw goes over the 1B fence. The umpire waits to give the runner time to complete her base running responsibilities. R1 does not continue to first but instead turns and heads for 2nd. The umpire calls dead ball and awards her two bases. She touches 2nd and proceeds to 3rd, when the 3rd base coach says go back and touch 2nd and then 1B before coming back to 3rd. By rule once you have reached one base beyond the base left too soon and the ball has become dead, it is illegal by rule to return to the base left too soon. Are you as an umpire going to physically prevent this from happening even though by rule it is illegal? No different in my mind than preventing a coach from making an illegal substitution. We prevent them all or none and just rule on them when required to by rule.

No, it is not illegal. It merely does not count as a retouch for purposes of appeal. It is legal for a runner to reverse directions (travesty exception aside... which I have never, ever, seen, BTW). She can go back and retouch during the dead ball and return to 3rd. It is not illegal for her to do so, and if the defense does not know the rule, they may assume she has now retouched. She hasn't, and is still in jeopardy of being out on appeal.

It is not the same thing as making an illegal sub, IMO.

I do understand your position on handling the illegal sub, however. I'm not sure about the subtle/coy comments to the coach (e.g. "are you sure you want to do that, coach") as opposed to the direct comment, "you can't do that, coach".

Since I don't call college, what does the Narcissistic Coaches Admiration Association (NCAA ) say to do?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No, it is not illegal. It merely does not count as a retouch for purposes of appeal. It is legal for a runner to reverse directions (travesty exception aside... which I have never, ever, seen, BTW). She can go back and retouch during the dead ball and return to 3rd. It is not illegal for her to do so, and if the defense does not know the rule, they may assume she has now retouched. She hasn't, and is still in jeopardy of being out on appeal.

Actually the rule book says the exact opposite. It says "She may not return".
I interpret "May not return" as being illegal as in "May not return to touch a base missed or left too soon on a caught fly ball if....". And the reason she is in jeopardy of being called out is because it was, wait for it....., an illegal retouch. One not allowed by rule. One that is illegal.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Since I don't call college, what does the Narcissistic Coaches Admiration Association (NCAA ) say to do?

I like the new meaning of the Acronym!

[AtlUmpSteve]

NCAA directs us to use preventative officiating to advise a coach that a lineup is innaccurate, or a substitution is illegal, and attempt to prevent it. But, if the coach insists, accept it, and let the opponent have the opportunity to take advantage.

Just as has been preached in most other associations.

With respect to an unreported sub, that should be treated as an appeal play. Not reported to you, so you cannot comment on it until asked.