The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Unrep Sub: Say Something or Stay Mum? (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/92374-unrep-sub-say-something-stay-mum.html)

Manny A Mon Sep 10, 2012 07:08am

Unrep Sub: Say Something or Stay Mum?
 
I worked an ASA tourney over the weekend, and I had a situation where I wasn't sure if I did the right thing by exercising a little preventive umpiring. The offense's DP reached base on a walk, and her head coach requested time to enter a substitute runner. The offense ended up batting around in the inning, and when the DP's slot came back up, the original DP came up to the plate.

Typically, I wouldn't notice when someone who isn't in the game enters to bat or play defense. But this DP was not a typical player. She stood about 6' 4" (I'm 5' 9") and had a huge pink bow holding her ponytail together. So when she came up, I recognized she was the player who was removed for a sub earlier in the inning.

Rather than just letting her bat, I called Time and went over to her coach to inquire whether or not he was re-entering the starter. He had forgotten that he made the substitution, so he sent up the girl who ran for the DP, and we continued playing. Nobody from the opposing side said anything.

Should I have kept quiet about the unreported substitution? Is that covered in any ASA guidance to umpires?

MD Longhorn Mon Sep 10, 2012 09:00am

My prediction ... half will say you did right, half will say you did wrong, and both sides will call the other side names. :)

Seriously, though, I have no problem with what you did.

Andy Mon Sep 10, 2012 09:51am

Crowder, you idiot, you're wrong! :D

I am going to take the other side, however.

ASA 6-B: ...The use of an unreported substitute is handled as a protest by the offended team while the player is in the game. (emphasis mine)

Since she is coming to bat, there is a potential opportunity for an out if the defense is paying attention. (6-C-3). It's not your job to remind the coach to report her back in the game.

I believe this to be a different situation than preventing a coach from making an illegal substitution. In that case, the penalty is more severe, a disqualification as opposed to an out, at the most, for an unreported sub.

KJUmp Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 853935)
Crowder, you idiot, you're wrong! :D

I am going to take the other side, however.

ASA 6-B: ...The use of an unreported substitute is handled as a protest by the offended team while the player is in the game. (emphasis mine)

Since she is coming to bat, there is a potential opportunity for an out if the defense is paying attention. (6-C-3). It's not your job to remind the coach to report her back in the game.

I believe this to be a different situation than preventing a coach from making an illegal substitution. In that case, the penalty is more severe, a disqualification as opposed to an out, at the most, for an unreported sub.

I'm with Andy.

And to Andy's point, lets say the defense was paying attention and was planning to utilize (6-C-3) to get an out should she reach base?
In your sitch, DC said nothing when you went over to the OC to inquire about the re-entry; but I'm sure you can imagine the possible ****house that could occur if the DC chose to make it an issue.

Dakota Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:43am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 853935)
...I believe this to be a different situation than preventing a coach from making an illegal substitution. In that case, the penalty is more severe, a disqualification as opposed to an out, at the most, for an unreported sub.

I agree it is a different situation, but the way I look at it is that if the coach is reporting an illegal substitution, if I don't tell him it is illegal, then I am essentially complicit by keeping an illegal lineup card.

I also agree mbcrowder is an idiot... :D

(So, how's this moderator stuff working out for you so far, Mike? ;))

MD Longhorn Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by dakota (Post 853943)
(so, how's this moderator stuff working out for you so far, mike? ;))

:) :) :) :)

Manny A Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:46am

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJUmp (Post 853939)
In your sitch, DC said nothing when you went over to the OC to inquire about the re-entry; but I'm sure you can imagine the possible ****house that could occur if the DC chose to make it an issue.

I can. But again, I would like to know if there's any guidance from ASA that tells umpires to not say anything in this situation.

Batting out of order is clearly an Appeal Play by rule. The umpire is not allowed to bring to the attention of either team when he/she sees an improper batter at the plate. But the unreported substitution situation does not have the same restriction to do nothing until appealed as far as I know. And not all unreported substitution violations would result in an out. So do we say nothing for any/all types, or just those that would create an out when properly discovered?

Dakota Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:53am

Rule 4-6-C-5 says
Quote:

5. When a runner and that runner is brought to the attention of the umpire BEFORE a pitch, legal or illegal, or a play made;
EFFECT: No penalty. Replace the unreported substitute with the correct
player or enter them as a legal substitute.
(Yeah, I know, your situation is a batter...)

The rule does not state any conditions about who brings it to the umpire's attention, or how it is brought to the umpire's attention, only that it is brought to his attention. In your situation, the player herself brought it to your attention by being physically distinctive.

Personally, I wouldn't have intervened, but you do have that principle to hang your hat on.

KJUmp Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 853962)
I can. But again, I would like to know if there's any guidance from ASA that tells umpires to not say anything in this situation.

Batting out of order is clearly an Appeal Play by rule. The umpire is not allowed to bring to the attention of either team when he/she sees an improper batter at the plate. But the unreported substitution situation does not have the same restriction to do nothing until appealed as far as I know. And not all unreported substitution violations would result in an out. So do we say nothing for any/all types, or just those that would create an out when properly discovered?

You make a good point.
But absent that guidance from ASA, and assuming that there is not one in place already; until such time that ASA provides us by rule, R/S, manual, or a specific directive from OKC, a procedure for handling this specific sitch, I'm handling it like a batting out of order sitch.
I'd rather err that way than the other. JMO.

Andy Mon Sep 10, 2012 01:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 853964)
Rule 4-6-C-5 says(Yeah, I know, your situation is a batter...)

The rule does not state any conditions about who brings it to the umpire's attention, or how it is brought to the umpire's attention, only that it is brought to his attention. In your situation, the player herself brought it to your attention by being physically distinctive.

Personally, I wouldn't have intervened, but you do have that principle to hang your hat on.

ASA 6-B, as quoted in my previous post, does state how an unreported sub is to be handled.....as a protest by the offended team.

If the offended team catches it, great, if not, their loss.....

Manny A Mon Sep 10, 2012 02:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 853989)
ASA 6-B, as quoted in my previous post, does state how an unreported sub is to be handled.....as a protest by the offended team.

Not trying to be thick-headed, but in my mind I read how a violation is handled as meaning that the umpire cannot rule on the unreported substitute unless the offended team protests.

In other words, if I had let this batter bat and get on base, I could not call her out myself before the next pitch for being unreported. The defense would have had to protest the violation.

That really doesn't prevent me from going to the coach and letting him/her know I detected something amiss, in my opinion.

MD Longhorn Mon Sep 10, 2012 02:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 854005)
That really doesn't prevent me from going to the coach and letting him/her know I detected something amiss, in my opinion.

Right there with you.

Big Slick Mon Sep 10, 2012 03:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 854005)
That really doesn't prevent me from going to the coach and letting him/her know I detected something amiss, in my opinion.

Would you rule on any other rule violations (which this is -- a violation of the substitution/re-entry rule) before it is brought to your attention? Already mentioned was batting out of order. How about illegal re-entry (she was in the improper batting position)? How about a runner missing a base . . . leaving early . . . using the improper portion of the base at first base . . . missing a base?

In your situation (and the one's I've mentioned), you do remain silent, as (as also mentioned before), you took away a play from the defense.

Not to sound pithy, but do you need a directive from ASA/OKC to tell you NOT to intervene?

Now, if you were playing under NFHS rules, the umpire CAN discover an unreported substitute/re-entry. At which point, you issue the team warning (if it is the first time).

Dakota Mon Sep 10, 2012 04:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 854013)
How about a runner missing a base . .

No... the rules specifically say the umpire may not rule on an appeal play until it is appealed
Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 854013)
. leaving early . .

Yes, not an appeal play.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 854013)
. using the improper portion of the base at first base . .

No, if the runner, since this is an appeal play. Yes, if this is the defense, since the runner is not out.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Slick (Post 854013)
. missing a base?

Is there an echo in here? :D

As I already said, I would not intervene on an unreported substitute. Let the defense protest if they notice.

And, I would not enter an illegal player on my lineup card without first telling the coach "you can't do that, coach."

ronald Mon Sep 10, 2012 05:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 854005)
Not trying to be thick-headed, but in my mind I read how a violation is handled as meaning that the umpire cannot rule on the unreported substitute unless the offended team protests.

In other words, if I had let this batter bat and get on base, I could not call her out myself before the next pitch for being unreported. The defense would have had to protest the violation.

That really doesn't prevent me from going to the coach and letting him/her know I detected something amiss, in my opinion.

What about fedelation? Never mind. Big slick got it.

Gulf Coast Blue Mon Sep 10, 2012 06:18pm

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

rwest Tue Sep 11, 2012 09:30am

Yes it does in my opinion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 854005)
Not trying to be thick-headed, but in my mind I read how a violation is handled as meaning that the umpire cannot rule on the unreported substitute unless the offended team protests.

In other words, if I had let this batter bat and get on base, I could not call her out myself before the next pitch for being unreported. The defense would have had to protest the violation.

That really doesn't prevent me from going to the coach and letting him/her know I detected something amiss, 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.

Dakota Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:06am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854112)
...Both are appeal plays by the offended team...

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.

rwest Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:21am

Poor choice of words on ASA's part
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 854119)
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.

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.

Dakota Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854124)
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.

rwest Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:10pm

You Mean Like
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 854129)
If you say so... Me? I go by what is in the book.

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! :)

Dakota Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854131)
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

rwest Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:31pm

Were's the fun in that! :)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 854135)
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

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".

MD Longhorn Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854131)
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! :)

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.

MD Longhorn Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854136)
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".

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.

rwest Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:37pm

Good Points
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 854137)
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.

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

Crabby_Bob Tue Sep 11, 2012 01:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 854137)
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.

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?

Manny A Wed Sep 12, 2012 07:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob (Post 854145)
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."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob (Post 854145)
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 Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:13am

I've not been told that
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 854205)
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 Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:30am

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 Thu Sep 13, 2012 09:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 854220)
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 Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854325)
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 Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 854329)
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 Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854330)
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 Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:39am

yes it is
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 854332)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 854332)
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 Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:11pm

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.

IRISHMAFIA Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854334)
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.


Speaking ASA

To start, dead ball should be called when the ball enters DBT, not when a runner finishes running the bases. :rolleyes:

However, the runner can touch whatever base they choose. What are you going to do, block the base path? Once the runner touches/passes an awarded base, s/he cannot return to touch a base missed or left too soon. While the rule notes this as an illegal act, you cannot rule the runner out for simply returning to touch a base when not permitted.

The defense must still make the proper appeal and, but rule, that must be for the runner leaving the base too soon or missing it.

rwest Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:15pm

wow!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 854338)
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.

Usually when I see Steve has replied after me in a thread I open it with a little mixture of fear and trepidation knowing that he is going to tell me I'm wrong. Imagine my surprise when Steve actually agrees with me. Or maybe, I should say I agree with him! :)

MD Longhorn Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854334)
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.

This part is completely untrue. She is in jeopardy of being called out because she left before the catch.

(If you disbelieve this, imagine a scenario where Susie leaves first base the moment a ball is caught, and all the other stuff in your scenario happens - she goes back and retouches 1st, even though she didn't have to... when they appeal at first, SHE IS NOT OUT.)

MD Longhorn Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854341)
Usually when I see Steve has replied after me in a thread I open it with a little mixture of fear and trepidation knowing that he is going to tell me I'm wrong. Imagine my surprise when Steve actually agrees with me. Or maybe, I should say I agree with him! :)

I agree entirely... and now, based on his and Irish's remarks, I will no longer be trying to prevent an unreported sub.

rwest Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:19pm

That's my point
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 854340)
Speaking ASA

To start, dead ball should be called when the ball enters DBT, not when a runner finishes running the bases. :rolleyes:

However, the runner can touch whatever base they choose. What are you going to do, block the base path? Once the runner touches/passes an awarded base, s/he cannot return to touch a base missed or left too soon. While the rule notes this as an illegal act, you cannot rule the runner out for simply returning to touch a base when not permitted.

The defense must still make the proper appeal and, but rule, that must be for the runner leaving the base too soon or missing it.

Right, the award is given after allowing the runner to complete their base running responsibilities. The dead ball is immediately after the ball enters DBT.

I'm applying the same logic to an unreported sub or illegal substitution. Just because it is illegal doesn't mean we prevent it. We allow it knowing that they are violating the rule and rule accordingly when called upon to do so.

rwest Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:20pm

What?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 854344)
I agree entirely... and now, based on his and Irish's remarks, I will no longer be trying to prevent an unreported sub.

And my remarks meant nothing to you?!?!?!?!? :(

rwest Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:23pm

Ok, true, I misspoke or mistyped!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 854343)
This part is completely untrue. She is in jeopardy of being called out because she left before the catch.

(If you disbelieve this, imagine a scenario where Susie leaves first base the moment a ball is caught, and all the other stuff in your scenario happens - she goes back and retouches 1st, even though she didn't have to... when they appeal at first, SHE IS NOT OUT.)

She is in jeopardy because she left early BUT is still in jeopardy because the retouch was illegal.

The point I am making is there are other things that are illegal to do that we don't prevent. The same logic should apply to unreported subs and illegal subs. And this retouch is illegal.

Tgoblue Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:49pm

Guy it's a game not a life change moment nice job of keeping it in it's proper perspective that being the spirit of the game is what make it just that a game let them play.

MD Longhorn Thu Sep 13, 2012 01:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgoblue (Post 854351)
Guy it's a game not a life change moment nice job of keeping it in it's proper perspective that being the spirit of the game is what make it just that a game let them play.

(............)
(,,,,,,,,,,,)
(;;;; )

Here's some leftover punctuation, your keyboard seems to have run out.
:)

MrRabbit Thu Sep 13, 2012 02:25pm

Lets take this a step farther and say you are using official scorekeepers...
1. The coach brings you a change and it is illegal and you know it, do you report it to the official score who now in turn tells you it is illegal, what do you do?

Under above logic I take it you would tell her to be quiet.

IRISHMAFIA Thu Sep 13, 2012 06:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854345)
I'm applying the same logic to an unreported sub or illegal substitution. Just because it is illegal doesn't mean we prevent it. We allow it knowing that they are violating the rule and rule accordingly when called upon to do so.

I disagree to a point. If you know a substitution is illegal, you do not take it. You do not allow something knowing they are violating a rule. What you don't do is initiate the action after the fact.

In the OP, if there was an indication from a player or coach that something was askew, I will look into it. An example is something I had a few years ago. A player came to the plate that I didn't recall seeing bat before, but that is not unusual as I don't sit there and try to memorize the batting order. As the pitcher approached the PP, the catcher stood up and hollered, "new batter".

I backed out from behind the plate and asked the batter if he just entered the game and recorded the proper substitution. The defense openly stated they were aware of a substitution and the batter had yet to put the ball into play or be retired.

rwest Fri Sep 14, 2012 06:53am

So why be different
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 854378)
I disagree to a point. If you know a substitution is illegal, you do not take it. You do not allow something knowing they are violating a rule. What you don't do is initiate the action after the fact.

In the OP, if there was an indication from a player or coach that something was askew, I will look into it. An example is something I had a few years ago. A player came to the plate that I didn't recall seeing bat before, but that is not unusual as I don't sit there and try to memorize the batting order. As the pitcher approached the PP, the catcher stood up and hollered, "new batter".

I backed out from behind the plate and asked the batter if he just entered the game and recorded the proper substitution. The defense openly stated they were aware of a substitution and the batter had yet to put the ball into play or be retired.

Why do we not prevent anything that is illegal by rule? Why not prevent, not physically but verbally (i.e. "No, number 24, you can't return to 1b"), a runner returning to a base that by rule she may not return to? Both are illegal by rule.

Dakota Fri Sep 14, 2012 08:44am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854415)
Why do we not prevent anything that is illegal by rule? Why not prevent, not physically but verbally (i.e. "No, number 24, you can't return to 1b"), a runner returning to a base that by rule she may not return to? Both are illegal by rule.

Are you serious? As I tried (unsuccessfully) to say above, I see a huge difference, as in not even remotely in the same conversation, a so-called "illegal" action by a player during playing action that merely places the player in jeopardy of being put out and a violation by a coach of the substitution rules after notifying the umpire of his intended action.

What "illegal" playing action do we EVER prohibit before the fact?

BretMan Fri Sep 14, 2012 09:09am

I'm trying to think of an "illegal act" (ie: rule violation) that does not have a penalty or consequence attached to it.

Can't think of one...

In the case of a runner going back to touch a missed/left early base when she's no longer entitled to correct her baseruinning error, I don't see that as being an illegal act. If she does go back, what is the penalty associated with doing that? There isn't one.

Rather than being an illegal act/rule violation, I'd call this a moot act. Whether she goes back or not, it has no bearing on the play or the call. All that runner did was get a little extra exercise and some baserunning practice!

Manny A Fri Sep 14, 2012 09:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854415)
Why do we not prevent anything that is illegal by rule? Why not prevent, not physically but verbally (i.e. "No, number 24, you can't return to 1b"), a runner returning to a base that by rule she may not return to? Both are illegal by rule.

There are varying degrees of "illegal" action that umpires deal with differently. Certain illegal acts require our immediate action, others do not. When we see a batter square around to bunt and her back foot touches home plate, we don't stop the pitcher while in motion and tell the batter to get her foot off the plate, do we? Nor do we tell the catcher who is about to scoop a loose ball with her helmet she'd better not touch it.

rwest Fri Sep 14, 2012 09:18am

True but...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BretMan (Post 854428)
I'm trying to think of an "illegal act" (ie: rule violation) that does not have a penalty or consequence attached to it.

Can't think of one...

In the case of a runner going back to touch a missed/left early base when she's no longer entitled to correct her baseruinning error, I don't see that as being an illegal act. If she does go back, what is the penalty associated with doing that? There isn't one.

Rather than being an illegal act/rule violation, I'd call this a moot act. Whether she goes back or not, it has no bearing on the play or the call. All that runner did was get a little extra exercise and some baserunning practice!

There are plenty of rule violations, (and going back to touch a base they are not entitled to is a rules violation), that we don't rule on until requested to.

BOO for instance. This is a rules violation, just like returning in the above scenario. Do we stop it from happening? Not in ASA. We are suppose to wait until requested to rule on it.

Do we stop a running from returning? No. But we do honor the appeal if made.

It all boils down to the rule book, which states "May not return". Can you think of a situation where an umpire would say to a player or coach "Player Y may not do X", where X is not a rules violation?

Dakota Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854431)
There are plenty of rule violations, (and going back to touch a base they are not entitled to is a rules violation), that we don't rule on until requested to. ...

We don't rule on that ever. The violation we rule on is missing the base / leaving the base early in the first place, not the return when they weren't entitled to. As said, above, it is better to look at this return as moot rather than illegal. We all know we can't read the rule book like Holy Writ. Even though the book would seem to declare this return as "illegal", what the rule is really saying is the action will not correct the leaving early violation.

Crabby_Bob Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 854424)
Are you serious? As I tried (unsuccessfully) to say above, I see a huge difference, as in not even remotely in the same conversation, a so-called "illegal" action by a player during playing action that merely places the player in jeopardy of being put out and a violation by a coach of the substitution rules after notifying the umpire of his intended action.

What "illegal" playing action do we EVER prohibit before the fact?

Batter sets up with the feet over the batter's box lines before the pitch?

Batter about to enter the box with an illegal bat?

Dakota Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:28am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob (Post 854448)
Batter sets up with the feet over the batter's box lines before the pitch?

Batter about to enter the box with an illegal bat?

The second is not playing action; the first, we are explicitly told the pitch cannot proceed until the batter has both feet in the box.

Manny A Fri Sep 14, 2012 02:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest (Post 854431)
Can you think of a situation where an umpire would say to a player or coach "Player Y may not do X", where X is not a rules violation?

"Coach, Player Y may not turn cartwheels as she goes around the bases after a home run."

"Coach, Player Y may not wear her jersey on her legs, and her pants over her head."

"Coach, Player Y may not come to the plate with two bats."

"Coach, Player Y may not send text messages with her iPhone while in the outfield."

Sorry, been a loooong week... :p

MD Longhorn Fri Sep 14, 2012 02:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 854495)
"Coach, Player Y may not turn cartwheels as she goes around the bases after a home run."

"Coach, Player Y may not wear her jersey on her legs, and her pants over her head."

"Coach, Player Y may not come to the plate with two bats."

"Coach, Player Y may not send text messages with her iPhone while in the outfield."

Sorry, been a loooong week... :p

Semi funny ... but these are all actually in the rules (2-4 explicitly, 1 indirectly)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1