Unnannounced Sub or Projected Sub BOO

[RichMSN]

I figured I'd email Carl Childress, since he was likely well aware of the history and the intent of the rule (and a change, if it was a change). Here's his reply, in total, to my message earlier in this thread (which I emailed to him). Clear as mud, as you'll see. My take on his response is this -- find out what local practice is and follow that. Here's the (1) and (2) Carl references again:

(1) A projected substitution on offense is one for anyone except the batter coming to the plate. Saying 25 will bat for 13 in the 7 hole when the 5 hole batter is coming to the plate is considered projected.

(2) A projected substitute is one where you make a substitute on offense for anyone and then say something like, "12 will bat for 24 and 24 will reenter." 24 reentering is the projected substitution we won't allow. Or saying that 12 will bat and play third base in the next half of the inning - the defensive part would be projected since the team isn't on defense.

Personally, I have always told a coach to have the substitute batters report when they come to the plate to hit -- that way if the coach changes his mind he's not locked in. It also avoids any odd BOOT situation and also gets around this whole "is the substitute projected or not" question. That said, a handful of very respected and knowledgable rules guys (not on this thread, but in a private email list I manage) around the country have chimed in with the opposite -- it's not projected since you're taking the change and it's effective immediately, not when the team takes the field or in a subsequent inning. If the team's on offense and it's a change to the batting order, it's not projected, it's a change. The defensive positions would be projected -- and that interpretation deals with the courtesy runner shenanigans that could result otherwise.

I'm not wholly convinced by either argument, to be honest, and I'm a guy who has the reputation as someone who knows the rules inside and out. The NFHS didn't feel the need to define a projected substitute and didn't include a case play that's dispositive. Onto Carl:

--------

The NFHS added the provision in 1983. According to their comment and the

illustrative case play, both (1) and (2) are correct.

Comment on change:

No substitution shall be reported to the umpire-in-chief until such time as

the substitution is actually made. This will preclude any problems that

might occur if a substitute is reported prior to the substitution, and then

the coach changes his mind. [That comment seems to back up Position 1.]

Their case play:

Coach of Team A tells umpire that Jones will hit for Smith and replace Lee

in left field the next time on defense. Ruling: The umpire shall accept the

substitution of Jones hitting for Smith. However, no substitution shall be

reported to the umpire-in-chief until the substitution is actually made.

Therefore, the umpire will tell the coach of Team A to wait until the team

is going on defense before reporting any defensive substitutions.

In truth, I can't see any point in this "dispute." From the beginning of

this "projected substitution rule," every umpire meeting I ever attended or

gave limited it to defensive changes.

Example: Home McAllen leads Donna, 10-0, in the bottom of the fourth. Coach

Pompa comes to me and says: "Carl, Garza will bat for Spelling, Garcia will

bat for Williams, and Gayton will bat for Flores."

I will say: "OK if it becomes important, I'll get those names later."

And we play on.

As my mentor David Mosqueda said: "Don't make trouble for yourself."

I hope this helps. Feel free to share it with anyone, anywhere.

In NCAA I haven't read anything about projected subs. (That's what I believe the guys on your email list using) My understanding of NCAA is that when the coach tells you the change, then it's the change...meaning there's no such thing as a projected sub.  In FED that's not the case.  See case plays above.

 

 

I figured I'd email Carl Childress, since he was likely well aware of the history and the intent of the rule (and a change, if it was a change). Here's his reply, in total, to my message earlier in this thread (which I emailed to him). Clear as mud, as you'll see. My take on his response is this -- find out what local practice is and follow that. Here's the (1) and (2) Carl references again:

(1) A projected substitution on offense is one for anyone except the batter coming to the plate. Saying 25 will bat for 13 in the 7 hole when the 5 hole batter is coming to the plate is considered projected.

(2) A projected substitute is one where you make a substitute on offense for anyone and then say something like, "12 will bat for 24 and 24 will reenter." 24 reentering is the projected substitution we won't allow. Or saying that 12 will bat and play third base in the next half of the inning - the defensive part would be projected since the team isn't on defense.

Personally, I have always told a coach to have the substitute batters report when they come to the plate to hit -- that way if the coach changes his mind he's not locked in. It also avoids any odd BOOT situation and also gets around this whole "is the substitute projected or not" question. That said, a handful of very respected and knowledgable rules guys (not on this thread, but in a private email list I manage) around the country have chimed in with the opposite -- it's not projected since you're taking the change and it's effective immediately, not when the team takes the field or in a subsequent inning. If the team's on offense and it's a change to the batting order, it's not projected, it's a change. The defensive positions would be projected -- and that interpretation deals with the courtesy runner shenanigans that could result otherwise.

I'm not wholly convinced by either argument, to be honest, and I'm a guy who has the reputation as someone who knows the rules inside and out. The NFHS didn't feel the need to define a projected substitute and didn't include a case play that's dispositive. Onto Carl:

--------

The NFHS added the provision in 1983. According to their comment and the

illustrative case play, both (1) and (2) are correct.

Comment on change:

No substitution shall be reported to the umpire-in-chief until such time as

the substitution is actually made. This will preclude any problems that

might occur if a substitute is reported prior to the substitution, and then

the coach changes his mind. [That comment seems to back up Position 1.]

Their case play:

Coach of Team A tells umpire that Jones will hit for Smith and replace Lee

in left field the next time on defense. Ruling: The umpire shall accept the

substitution of Jones hitting for Smith. However, no substitution shall be

reported to the umpire-in-chief until the substitution is actually made.

Therefore, the umpire will tell the coach of Team A to wait until the team

is going on defense before reporting any defensive substitutions.

In truth, I can't see any point in this "dispute." From the beginning of

this "projected substitution rule," every umpire meeting I ever attended or

gave limited it to defensive changes.

Example: Home McAllen leads Donna, 10-0, in the bottom of the fourth. Coach

Pompa comes to me and says: "Carl, Garza will bat for Spelling, Garcia will

bat for Williams, and Gayton will bat for Flores."

I will say: "OK if it becomes important, I'll get those names later."

And we play on.

As my mentor David Mosqueda said: "Don't make trouble for yourself."

I hope this helps. Feel free to share it with anyone, anywhere.

In NCAA I haven't read anything about projected subs. (That's what I believe the guys on your email list using) My understanding of NCAA is that when the coach tells you the change, then it's the change...meaning there's no such thing as a projected sub.  In FED that's not the case.  See case plays above.

 

NCAA has no such beast.  Take subs anytime the ball is dead.  Of course NCAA doesn't have courtesy runners or reentry, so the rules are a lot simpler.

[TNCoach]

The rule states "projected substitutes are not allowed."  The umpire unknowingly allowed the projected substitute for the player who the coach believed had come to bat.  It is not the umpires fault as an umpire should not have to keep up with the batting order, but he did allow the projected sub, wrote it down in that slot, and assumed play, believing that the 8th hitter should have been up to bat. 

 

The way I see it, he allowed the projected sub in the 8 spot, the 7 spot was supposed to be up.  He (if he did what he was supposed to) announced to the other team the player was in for the 8th spot.  Seems simple enough that you have BOO.

[mrumpiresir]

mrumpiresir,

 

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying because I believe that is what would likely happen if no one noticed the SNAFU when the sub originally entered the game having been reported as a sub in the #8 hole but batting when the #7 hole was "proper".

 

Per the initial sitch, your lineup card will show the original #7 batter in the #7 hole, and the "problematic sub" in the #8 hole.

 

If, as you suggest (and I would concur), the line up card held by the PU defines the proper batting order, the implication is that a team's appeal or failure to appeal a BOO infraction is ultimately determinate of the proper batting order.

 

Which is clearly contrary to what the rules say.

 

JM

OK. That makes sense. 

 

So the sub bats in the 7 hole and is followed by the 9 hole.  If the defense is paying attention we should have an appeal for BOO during or after the 9 batter bats. If they don't appeal, the next time around when the 7 hole batter bats in that spot he would legally be replacing the sub that went into the 7 hole.  When that sub now tries to bat in the 8 hole, we have an illegal sub at least and or BOO.  Here is another opportunity for the defense to appeal.This is all based on the premise that no one noticed two guys in the 7 hole playing defense.  What a mess.

[johnnyg08]

The rule states "projected substitutes are not allowed."  The umpire unknowingly allowed the projected substitute for the player who the coach believed had come to bat.  It is not the umpires fault as an umpire should not have to keep up with the batting order, but he did allow the projected sub, wrote it down in that slot, and assumed play, believing that the 8th hitter should have been up to bat. 

 

The way I see it, he allowed the projected sub in the 8 spot, the 7 spot was supposed to be up.  He (if he did what he was supposed to) announced to the other team the player was in for the 8th spot.  Seems simple enough that you have BOO.

 

 

Except it's not BOO.  

[johnnyg08]

mrumpiresir,

 

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying because I believe that is what would likely happen if no one noticed the SNAFU when the sub originally entered the game having been reported as a sub in the #8 hole but batting when the #7 hole was "proper".

 

Per the initial sitch, your lineup card will show the original #7 batter in the #7 hole, and the "problematic sub" in the #8 hole.

 

If, as you suggest (and I would concur), the line up card held by the PU defines the proper batting order, the implication is that a team's appeal or failure to appeal a BOO infraction is ultimately determinate of the proper batting order.

 

Which is clearly contrary to what the rules say.

 

JM

OK. That makes sense. 

 

So the sub bats in the 7 hole and is followed by the 9 hole.  If the defense is paying attention we should have an appeal for BOO during or after the 9 batter bats. If they don't appeal, the next time around when the 7 hole batter bats in that spot he would legally be replacing the sub that went into the 7 hole.  When that sub now tries to bat in the 8 hole, we have an illegal sub at least and or BOO.  Here is another opportunity for the defense to appeal.This is all based on the premise that no one noticed two guys in the 7 hole playing defense.  What a mess.

 

 

You won't have BOO the first time through.  It's simply a pinch hitter.

[mrumpiresir]

 

mrumpiresir,

 

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying because I believe that is what would likely happen if no one noticed the SNAFU when the sub originally entered the game having been reported as a sub in the #8 hole but batting when the #7 hole was "proper".

 

Per the initial sitch, your lineup card will show the original #7 batter in the #7 hole, and the "problematic sub" in the #8 hole.

 

If, as you suggest (and I would concur), the line up card held by the PU defines the proper batting order, the implication is that a team's appeal or failure to appeal a BOO infraction is ultimately determinate of the proper batting order.

 

Which is clearly contrary to what the rules say.

 

JM

OK. That makes sense. 

 

So the sub bats in the 7 hole and is followed by the 9 hole.  If the defense is paying attention we should have an appeal for BOO during or after the 9 batter bats. If they don't appeal, the next time around when the 7 hole batter bats in that spot he would legally be replacing the sub that went into the 7 hole.  When that sub now tries to bat in the 8 hole, we have an illegal sub at least and or BOO.  Here is another opportunity for the defense to appeal.This is all based on the premise that no one noticed two guys in the 7 hole playing defense.  What a mess.

 

 

You won't have BOO the first time through.  It's simply a pinch hitter.

I agree we don't have BOO when the sub bats in the 7 hole, but if he's followed by the 9 hole batter then the 9 hole batter would be BOO.

[johnnyg08]

 

 

mrumpiresir,

 

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying because I believe that is what would likely happen if no one noticed the SNAFU when the sub originally entered the game having been reported as a sub in the #8 hole but batting when the #7 hole was "proper".

 

Per the initial sitch, your lineup card will show the original #7 batter in the #7 hole, and the "problematic sub" in the #8 hole.

 

If, as you suggest (and I would concur), the line up card held by the PU defines the proper batting order, the implication is that a team's appeal or failure to appeal a BOO infraction is ultimately determinate of the proper batting order.

 

Which is clearly contrary to what the rules say.

 

JM

OK. That makes sense. 

 

So the sub bats in the 7 hole and is followed by the 9 hole.  If the defense is paying attention we should have an appeal for BOO during or after the 9 batter bats. If they don't appeal, the next time around when the 7 hole batter bats in that spot he would legally be replacing the sub that went into the 7 hole.  When that sub now tries to bat in the 8 hole, we have an illegal sub at least and or BOO.  Here is another opportunity for the defense to appeal.This is all based on the premise that no one noticed two guys in the 7 hole playing defense.  What a mess.

 

 

You won't have BOO the first time through.  It's simply a pinch hitter.

I agree we don't have BOO when the sub bats in the 7 hole, but if he's followed by the 9 hole batter then the 9 hole batter would be BOO.

 

Yes, agree.

[TNCoach]

The rule states "projected substitutes are not allowed." The umpire unknowingly allowed the projected substitute for the player who the coach believed had come to bat. It is not the umpires fault as an umpire should not have to keep up with the batting order, but he did allow the projected sub, wrote it down in that slot, and assumed play, believing that the 8th hitter should have been up to bat.

 

The way I see it, he allowed the projected sub in the 8 spot, the 7 spot was supposed to be up. He (if he did what he was supposed to) announced to the other team the player was in for the 8th spot. Seems simple enough that you have BOO.

 

 

Except it's not BOO.

If you take the view that the sub is in fact the 8 hitter (since the umpire did accept the projected sub in that slot and inserted the sub in that spot -- even against the rules), then he hits when the 7th batter should have been up, it is BOO.

[mrumpiresir]

So the question, at least to me, is; which takes precedent?  Is the sub in the lineup for B8 which is what the coach asked for, or is he now B7 because he entered in that spot (as an unreported sub would legally do)?

[johnnyg08]

 

The rule states "projected substitutes are not allowed." The umpire unknowingly allowed the projected substitute for the player who the coach believed had come to bat. It is not the umpires fault as an umpire should not have to keep up with the batting order, but he did allow the projected sub, wrote it down in that slot, and assumed play, believing that the 8th hitter should have been up to bat.

 

The way I see it, he allowed the projected sub in the 8 spot, the 7 spot was supposed to be up. He (if he did what he was supposed to) announced to the other team the player was in for the 8th spot. Seems simple enough that you have BOO.

 

 

Except it's not BOO.

If you take the view that the sub is in fact the 8 hitter (since the umpire did accept the projected sub in that slot and inserted the sub in that spot -- even against the rules), then he hits when the 7th batter should have been up, it is BOO.

 

 

It's not BOO.  You can't project a substitution so it is a pinch hitter in the 7 spot.  Change your lineup card to reflect how the event actually played out, then penalize as appropriate and if necessary later in the game.

 or is he now B7 because he entered in that spot (as an unreported sub would legally do)?

 

^^^  This

 

[TNCoach]

You can't project the sub, but is it since the umpire accepted it as a projected sub? I know, the umpire isn't responsible for knowing who is up when, but if I am the coach and the umpire accepts my projected sub, am I in the wrong?

 

Another point... I assist at the high school level. Projected subs are not allowed. I can't count how many times this season in just 6 games that the umpire has come to me and told me the substitution for a pinch hitter or pinch runner and told me the starter will re-enter on defense.

 

Am I a RAT if pitch a fit that you can't have a projected sub?

Obviously, you can't have a projected sub, but if the umpire accepts it, you kind of have to eat it as describe in the OP. Both know it was a sub in the 8th spot, not the 7th spot. The umpire wrote it down as such when he was told.

[yawetag]

NFHS 3-1-1: ... a substitute may replace a player of his team when the ball is dead and time has been called.

 

In my mind, and given the OP, the ball is dead (we're between innings) and the substitute is replacing a player of his team. Whether or not that starting player is currently in any capacity on the field is immaterial. A coach telling me "#18 for #16, Andrew" is the same whether the team's on offense or defense. I don't care who is about to step in the batter's box or even what position he's taking on the field (pitcher excepted) -- I just care that I draw a line through #16 and write "18" next to it and that I let the other coach know.

So, given the OP, I've now got #18 as the on-deck batter. When he steps into the box and takes a pitch, he's simply a batter who is batting out of order. If anyone notices, then we treat it just like any other -- we remove him from the box and bring in the correct hitter. #18 can walk to the on-deck circle and wait. In fact, I believed this so much that if the offensive coach had said "#16? No, I meant #14 who was supposed to come up to bat first!" I would have told him "Tough crap. He's in for #16 and can bat next."

 

However, like Rich, I see both sides and respect the argues of both. This argument is one that would rarely, if ever, change minds.

 

That said, consider mine changed -- for now. I emailed my state interpreter who said the coach's change was a projected substitution. Additionally, if the "incorrect" batter was noticed before the ball was put into play, he would be allowed to go back to the bench with no penalty and the correct batter could come to bat. If the ball were put into play, he would become an unannounced substitute for the 7 spot.

 

Because of this, I'll not allow it anymore. If a coach tells me he's bringing in a pinch hitter for someone other than the current batter, I'll have him make sure the batter reports himself or the coach himself does it. It's something that doesn't happen very often, and I may not even encounter it this year, but I'll remember to follow what my state interpreter wants me to follow.

[johnnyg08]

You can't project the sub, but is it since the umpire accepted it as a projected sub? I know, the umpire isn't responsible for knowing who is up when, but if I am the coach and the umpire accepts my projected sub, am I in the wrong?

 

Another point... I assist at the high school level. Projected subs are not allowed. I can't count how many times this season in just 6 games that the umpire has come to me and told me the substitution for a pinch hitter or pinch runner and told me the starter will re-enter on defense.

 

Am I a RAT if pitch a fit that you can't have a projected sub?

Obviously, you can't have a projected sub, but if the umpire accepts it, you kind of have to eat it as describe in the OP. Both know it was a sub in the 8th spot, not the 7th spot. The umpire wrote it down as such when he was told.

 

You're probably not a rat if you pitch a fit, but you're not picking the right battles because it really doesn't matter.  It is just against the rules.  A team gains no advantage by projecting a sub.  It's just a game management rule.  

[mrumpiresir]

Essentially the coach said he was substituting for the 8 hole but what he did was substitute for the 7 hole.  Maybe when the coach said "number 18 is batting for number 22", the PU should ask if that spot in the lineup is due up now.  That could have prevented a lot of trouble.  In the OP, the PU did not know it was a projected sub because he was not aware of who was due to bat.  Both the offensive and defensive coaches should have known who was due to bat.

[mstaylor]

Essentially the coach said he was substituting for the 8 hole but what he did was substitute for the 7 hole.  Maybe when the coach said "number 18 is batting for number 22", the PU should ask if that spot in the lineup is due up now.  That could have prevented a lot of trouble.  In the OP, the PU did not know it was a projected sub because he was not aware of who was due to bat.  Both the offensive and defensive coaches should have known who was due to bat.

That is exactly what I have been saying. As a matter of good practice, whenever the OC comes to  you between innings to give you a sub, ask if he is lead-off, if no then tell him to tell me when it happens. There is no way an umpire tracks the batters and who is due up. A simple question makes this an academic discussion. If he intends the sub to be in the eight hole but he comes up in the seven spot then he subs for the seven hole.

Now the problems becomes when two innings later it is discovered that the sub and the seven spot have both been in the game. The only logical thought that I can see is, and this is going to be ugly, the seven spot reentered on defense for the eight spot. Of course, the next ugly permeation is when the eight spot starter goes to reenter. He is going to replace the sub, most likely, and now you have eight in the seven hole, seven in the eight hole. 

Please ask the simple question at the original sub time and save all this stupid stuff.    

[mrumpiresir]

Simply put;

 

The coach made a projected sub. That is not allowed so disregard everything the coach said. When the sub bats, he is an unannounced sub batting in the 7 hole and is legal.  Even if the umpire accepts the "projected sub", even unknowingly, he has done something contrary to what the rule states.  So we don't have BOO at that point. The coach screwed up, not the umpire.

[johnnyg08]

Simply put;

 

The coach made a projected sub. That is not allowed so disregard everything the coach said. When the sub bats, he is an unannounced sub batting in the 7 hole and is legal.  Even if the umpire accepts the "projected sub", even unknowingly, he has done something contrary to what the rule states.  So we don't have BOO at that point. The coach screwed up, not the umpire.

 

 

Yep.  Read post #5 of this thread.  But it's been fun reading it for 5 pages!! :-) 

[Jimurray]

Essentially the coach said he was substituting for the 8 hole but what he did was substitute for the 7 hole.  Maybe when the coach said "number 18 is batting for number 22", the PU should ask if that spot in the lineup is due up now.  That could have prevented a lot of trouble.  In the OP, the PU did not know it was a projected sub because he was not aware of who was due to bat.  Both the offensive and defensive coaches should have known who was due to bat.

That is exactly what I have been saying. As a matter of good practice, whenever the OC comes to  you between innings to give you a sub, ask if he is lead-off, if no then tell him to tell me when it happens. There is no way an umpire tracks the batters and who is due up. A simple question makes this an academic discussion. If he intends the sub to be in the eight hole but he comes up in the seven spot then he subs for the seven hole.

Now the problems becomes when two innings later it is discovered that the sub and the seven spot have both been in the game. The only logical thought that I can see is, and this is going to be ugly, the seven spot reentered on defense for the eight spot. Of course, the next ugly permeation is when the eight spot starter goes to reenter. He is going to replace the sub, most likely, and now you have eight in the seven hole, seven in the eight hole. 

Please ask the simple question at the original sub time and save all this stupid stuff.    

For the sake of argument, 18 is in the on deck circle, the coach says yes he's leading off and only when he's in the coaches box as we make the ball live does he look down at the scorebook and see that he screwed up. If good practice is circumvented what is the conclusion of this academic discussion?

 

For guidance maybe we should use OBR and NCAA. They don't address projected subs and if the coach gives you a sub he's in the game even before you write it down and announce it. In that case in my OP swap B8 for B7 and we're done. If not caught we might have BOO. The only other code that I know of that addresses projected subs is Little League. Both LL and FED apparently have this prohibition because it can lead to problems with reentry and/or courtesy runners.

[basejester]

You're probably not a rat if you pitch a fit, but you're not picking the right battles because it really doesn't matter.  It is just against the rules.  A team gains no advantage by projecting a sub.  It's just a game management rule.

I didn't see the point when I first learned this rule, but it's really pretty smart. If you allowed projected substitutions, eventually, you'd have managers trying to "unproject" substitutions. Players are either physically in the game or not in the game. There's no purpose to a third state.

[RichMSN]

The fact remains that there is no good definition of what makes a sub a projected sub in NFHS baseball.

 

It's true that an UNREPORTED sub is in the game when he steps into the batter's box, but I've read nothing anywhere that says that a coach REPORTING a sub for any other hitter in an inning is actually projecting a sub.   There's simply no written definition of this.  I'm not saying I agree with that view, necessarily, but that view is out there.

 

Ignoring that there are some really smart people who are saying this (besides me) doesn't mean that they aren't here.

 

That said, I've never allowed a sub for a player on offense unless the player was on base or coming to bat.  I'm not sure that I'll change that practice, either.

 

(In Little League, there are good reasons for this definition of projecting substitutes -- the Special Pinch Runner rule.  In NFHS baseball, there is no problem with courtesy runners since a sub put in the game on offense has no defensive position as THAT is projecting a substitute until the team goes on defense.  And the reentry rule isn't really a problem, either.)

[johnnyg08]

If you project a winner of an election..(that's the other place I hear the term "project" in this context)...the results aren't official yet, but they're "projecting" a winner.  

 

In this situation, if the sub is not immediately entering the game at that moment, then he must be a "projected sub" since he's not in NOW, but he'll be in later.  

[alex7]

This went 5 pages?  wow.  

 

UmpJM,  you're confusing NCAA rules with FED rules.  In NCAA, you are right. The sub is legit once the coach announces it and you write it down

.

In Fed, as Johnny and the Admin have stated, the coach projected this substitution into the wrong spot. Too bad, he can't.

 

Once the sub stepped into bat in the 7-hole, he's the new 7-hitter. Umpire COULD have caught this, but didn't. Just tell the opposing coach that you messed up and that substitution you stated can't happen.

[RichMSN]

If you project a winner of an election..(that's the other place I hear the term "project" in this context)...the results aren't official yet, but they're "projecting" a winner.  

 

In this situation, if the sub is not immediately entering the game at that moment, then he must be a "projected sub" since he's not in NOW, but he'll be in later.  

 

Just cause you're saying it doesn't make it so.  Again, until the NFHS does a better job with this with a better definition or a case play that directly covers this, all we have is what our local/state people tell us to call.  And what we think the word 'project' means in this context.

 

UmpJM isn't confusing anything, IMO.  I've seen other people (in another venue) from Illinois with the exact same view on this.  

 

That said, I'm officially bored with the topic now.  Until someone emails Kyle McNeely and we hear back from him, that is. 

[alex7]

The rule is written.  Just because some people in some states don't know it doesn't mean it's difficult.

 

The coach projected a substitution.  That's not allowed.  So it didn't happen.

A legal substitute stepped into the batter's box.  He's the new sub.

 

Nothing confusing about it unless you're thinking NCAA rules.

[RichMSN]

The rule is written.  Just because some people in some states don't know it doesn't mean it's difficult.

 

The coach projected a substitution.  That's not allowed.  So it didn't happen.

A legal substitute stepped into the batter's box.  He's the new sub.

 

Nothing confusing about it unless you're thinking NCAA rules.

 

One more - can't resist responding while my bracket goes up in flames:

 

OK, if you say so.

 

I say that projected could mean nothing more than that I won't allow a coach to tell me that 23 is going to bat for 12 and 12 is going to re-enter on defense the next half inning.

 

But please pretend that it's cut and dried and those who say otherwise "just don't know the rules."