Protesting an illegal substitute?

[johnnyg08]

Assume OBR with NFHS reentry & DH

Under OBR, what would be the complete protocol do everything properly? 

Here's a scenario:

A team claims to have protested a game in the 9th inning on an illegal substitution that occurred in the 5th inning. The game ended up going 11 innings.

An illegal substitution DID occur, but it occurred in the bottom of the 6th inning, with a completely different player, not in the 5th inning as written in their protest report.

Their protest report contained details of LEGAL substitutions.

Their report also made no mention of the actual illegal substitute. 

The game ends up going 11 innings and the illegal substitute did continue to play for the remainder of the game. 

Does the team have any grounds to "move the goalposts" and now protest something completely different from their written protest report? 

 

[noumpere]

I would deny the protest.

 

What did the umpire's report say?

[johnnyg08]

7 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I would deny the protest.

 

What did the umpire's report say?

Our umpire maintains that the word "protest" was never used, therefore there was no report.

 

[Rich Ives]

Under OBR you have to protest at the time of the infraction.  No exceptions.

Rule 7.04 Comment: Whenever a manager protests a game
because of alleged misapplication of the rules the protest will
not be recognized unless the umpires are notified at the time
the play under protest occurs and before the next pitch, play or
attempted play. A protest arising on a game-ending play may
be filed until 12 noon the following day with the league office.

[yawetag]

There's nothing that can be done from when the illegal substitute entered the game to until they noticed it. It's at that point (the point the illegal substitute was noticed) that something can be done.

Without reading the protest paperwork, I can't speak directly. However, if I'm reading your post correctly, they're protesting an illegal substitute after they were a legal substitute in the 5th inning. If that's the case, I would examine the books and see if that previously-legal substitute was a now-illegal substitute in the 9th inning (when the protest was filed). If so, you fix the error at that point in the 9th and play on.

This is how I'm envisioning what happened:

5th inning - SubA enters game legally

6th inning - SubA re-enters game illegally

9th inning - Other team realizes error and brings to umpire. Umpire does nothing, so team protests.

[yawetag]

2 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Under OBR you have to protest at the time of the infraction.  No exceptions.

But an illegal substitute can be noticed at any time, right? I don't think he's legalized after the first pitch or play; he's always illegal.

[Rich Ives]

3 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Our umpire maintains that the word "protest" was never used, therefore there was no report.

 

In amateur ball they don't always know that they should use the word.  If you know they are saying you got the rule wrong ask them "are you protesting" - because nowhere in the rule does it say the word "protest" must be uttered .

[Rich Ives]

1 minute ago, yawetag said:

But an illegal substitute can be noticed at any time, right? I don't think he's legalized after the first pitch or play; he's always illegal.

The illegal act was  inserting him.  You need to protest at that point.

[yawetag]

Just now, Rich Ives said:

The illegal act was  inserting him.  You need to protest at that point.

I disagree. The NFHS books has specific rules on what happens when he's discovered, including how to handle plays or at-bats they were involved. If it's illegal on entry, then those rules wouldn't need to be in there, as they would then be valid entries.

With how I read it, an "illegal player" can be discovered at any time.

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

In amateur ball they don't always know that they should use the word.  If you know they are saying you got the rule wrong ask them "are you protesting" - because nowhere in the rule does it say the word "protest" must be uttered .

While that is true, there needs to be some formal cue as to what is happening...in order to put the other parts into play correct? 

And that is on the team to know that piece...they have to have some role in the process other than simply disagreeing. 

Also, does the illegal substitute become "legal" in essence if not protested at the proper time? 

 

 

[yawetag]

Case Play 3.1.1Q proves it doesn't have to be immediate:

Quote

With R1 on first base, B2 doubles and (b) after the next pitch R1 is discovered to be an illegal player. RULING: In (b), R1 is out and restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game.

That proves that illegal substitutes can be discovered at any time.

Note that I'm not advocating changing anything that happened prior to the 9th inning, when the other coach discovered it. BUT, once it's discovered, you have to apply the correct rules, which may have affected a play in the 9th inning, had the coach mentioned it before the next pitch.

Also, there's a weird limbo here of Fed/OBR. With Fed re-entry being used, I believe that Fed substitution rules should be used. Therefore, Fed rules 3-1 (Substituting) should prevail over any OBR rules related to it.

[Jimurray]

4 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

While that is true, there needs to be some formal cue as to what is happening...in order to put the other parts into play correct? 

And that is on the team to know that piece...they have to have some role in the process other than simply disagreeing. 

Also, does the illegal substitute become "legal" in essence if not protested at the proper time? 

 

 

In both OBR and FED an umpire can discover an illegal sub without any notification from a team. If the ump doesn't discover it a protest is not needed. The team notifies the ump. If the ump then rules the sub was legal and the team disagrees a protest of the rule can be lodged. That appears to be what happened in the fifth inning. But who discovered the actual illegal sub in the sixth inning. That should have been disallowed by the ump when it occurred. Sinceit wasn't did the protest in the ninth bring attention to all subs and the ump thought he needed a formal protest to act on the illegal sub?

[Rich Ives]

17 minutes ago, yawetag said:

I disagree. The NFHS books has specific rules on what happens when he's discovered, including how to handle plays or at-bats they were involved. If it's illegal on entry, then those rules wouldn't need to be in there, as they would then be valid entries.

With how I read it, an "illegal player" can be discovered at any time.

Nice try BUT the game was played under OBR.. It used the FED sub rule but NOT the FED protest rule.  You have to use the OBR protest rules in this case.

[Rich Ives]

5 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

In both OBR and FED an umpire can discover an illegal sub without any notification from a team. If the ump doesn't discover it a protest is not needed. The team notifies the ump. If the ump then rules the sub was legal and the team disagrees a protest of the rule can be lodged. That appears to be what happened in the fifth inning. But who discovered the actual illegal sub in the sixth inning. That should have been disallowed by the ump when it occurred. Sinceit wasn't did the protest in the ninth bring attention to all subs and the ump thought he needed a formal protest to act on the illegal sub?

They didn't discover it until the  9th inning, then protested a legal sub that happened in the 6th instead of the illegal one in the 5th.

[johnnyg08]

8 minutes ago, yawetag said:

There's nothing that can be done from when the illegal substitute entered the game to until they noticed it. It's at that point (the point the illegal substitute was noticed) that something can be done.

Without reading the protest paperwork, I can't speak directly. However, if I'm reading your post correctly, they're protesting an illegal substitute after they were a legal substitute in the 5th inning. If that's the case, I would examine the books and see if that previously-legal substitute was a now-illegal substitute in the 9th inning (when the protest was filed). If so, you fix the error at that point in the 9th and play on.

This is how I'm envisioning what happened:

5th inning - SubA enters game legally

6th inning - SubA re-enters game illegally

9th inning - Other team realizes error and brings to umpire. Umpire does nothing, so team protests.

I guess for the most part, that's what happened. 

The discussion with the other manager stated that he wasn't aware of any protest until after the game when he was cleaning the dugouts. 

This was a DH reentry issue. 

B2: DH (#99) gets a hit

B2: F9 (#64 player being DH'd for)  runs for DH /#99

T3: F9/#64 remains in the game in right field

B4: DH/#99 comes back into the game to hit

T5: F9/#64 returns to play right field. 

B6: DH/#99 returns to hit and remains in the game for its duration

9th inning: Mgr allegedly tells the umpire some version of "they can't do that, they're using the DH wrong" 

Game continues and ends in the 11 innings. 

Association president calls the umpire the next day and the umpire has a recollection of a disagreement about substitution, game continues, etc...

Winning team manager is made aware of a 'protest' after the game is over, umpire paid and gone, while he is cleaning the dugouts. 

Report from protesting team, protests the details in writing around the substitutions occurring between the B2 and T5.

Protest denied. Now the team maintains that an infraction occurred (and it did, nobody disputes that) but now the discussion is around if there is grounds for a new protest now at the first protest was denied. 

Don't they have to properly articulate their protest in their narrative?

Let's assume that the league accepted the original protest even though the umpire didn't recall ever hearing about a protest until our association president called him the next day or the other team until after the game was over. 

My contention is that even IF the league accepts the protest paperwork, the protest is denied because the details in the report involve LEGAL substitutions and they only get one shot at protesting a rule misapplication. 

 

 

[yawetag]

14 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Nice try BUT the game was played under OBR.. It used the FED sub rule but NOT the FED protest rule.  You have to use the OBR protest rules in this case.

Nice try, BUT the situation the coach is protesting occurred in the 9th inning, not the 6th inning.

Once the coach discovers the illegal player and the umpire didn't do what he was supposed to do, THAT becomes the protested situation. He was illegal in the 6th when he entered, but he's still illegal in the 9th when it's discovered. And, once discovered, the penalties take effect (which is the case play I mentioned above).

[johnnyg08]

27 minutes ago, yawetag said:

That proves that illegal substitutes can be discovered at any time.

I do agree that an illegal sub is ALWAYS an illegal sub. I think the issue here is at what point does a team lose the right to protest and how do they go about properly jumping through the hoops. 

I always thought that the onus is on the protesting team to properly articulate their reasons...IOW, it's on them to make their case.

If their report doesn't make the case, then it's over. 

Again, assuming protocol was followed in the first place, which in this case, seems like protocol wasn't followed. 

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, yawetag said:

Nice try, BUT the situation the coach is protesting occurred in the 9th inning, not the 6th inning.

Once the coach discovers the illegal player and the umpire didn't do what he was supposed to do, THAT becomes the protested situation. He was illegal in the 6th when he entered, but he's still illegal in the 9th when it's discovered. And, once discovered, the penalties take effect (which is the case play I mentioned above).

Let's say that's the case. They protesting team is still required to make their case. Correct? If they improperly articulated their protest the protest is denied right? They can't go back and write a new report after the first one was denied can they? 

[yawetag]

First, I'm denying the protest. If the protest wasn't made obvious to the umpire and marked in the books, then there wasn't a protest. Case closed.

Now, let's assume the coach protested correctly.

I contend that because an illegal substitute is always illegal and can be discovered at any time, then the player entering the game isn't what's being protested by the coach. He's protesting that what the umpire did when the discovery was made. And, that would be a correct protest.

Coach: "Hey, Andrew. #99 is playing. He's not allowed to."

THAT is the situation at hand. Not that he's been playing for 3 innings. Once THAT situation is realized, the umpire has to act. If he doesn't do what the rules require (again, we can debate whether Fed or OBR takes precedence), then I believe the coach can protest his incorrect action. The umpire's actions are 100% rule-based - no judgement.

[johnnyg08]

WUM:

Protestable Decisions:

Leagues may set additional rules as to the procedures for a team filing a protest because of the claim that an umpire misapplied a rule, or made a ruling in contradiction to the rules. Judgment decisions by umpires (safe, out, ball, strike, fair, foul) are not subject to protest. 

In determining whether to accept a protest by a manager, the umpires should first determine the exact reason he wishes to file a protest. The ruling umpire should then consult with his other crew members and assure that the decision he made was not a misapplication of the rules. He should then note the exact situation (including score, inning, number of outs, the current batter and any runners, any visits to the current pitcher, etc) at the moment of the protest, and the play and/or ruling that lead to the protest.

Should a manager attempt to file a protest over a matter which was not set forth in the rules, the umpire should inform him that he does not have the ability to do so. If he continues to insist that he wishes to protest the decision, the umpire should accept the protest, but note that the decision was not one of application of a rule.

Timing and Remedy:

If a manager wishes to protest a game because of alleged misapplication of the rules, the protest will not be recognized unless the umpires are notified immediately after the play on which the protested ruling occurs, and before the next pitch, play, attempted play, or on a game ending play, with the league office before 12pm on the following day.

Even if the protest is upheld, the game will only be replayed if the protested decision adversely affected the protesting team's chances of winning the game. The decision of whether the protest will be upheld, or whether the game must be replayed in any part, is the sole discretion of the League President, and his decision shall be final.

[yawetag]

10 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Let's say that's the case. They protesting team is still required to make their case. Correct? If they improperly articulated their protest the protest is denied right? They can't go back and write a new report after the first one was denied can they? 

This is up to the BOD and the by-laws. I'm giving some leeway to the coach - it's not like they write these every day. However, just like an appeal of a missed runner, he'd better have the right player and the right situation.

However, the coach is wrong. Everything that happened between the 2nd and 5th was legal. I'll use red to signify first removal (I circle on my card); green for re-entry; strikethrough and underline for second removal

I've got Smith as F9; Jones as DH for Smith. Lineup card similar to: Smith / Jones | F9 / DH

B2: Jones hits (legal)

B2: Smith runs for Jones (legal substitution - DH is elimated from the game): Smith / Jones | F9 / DH

T3: Smith remains in game (legal)

B4: Jones enters game to hit (legal substitution - Jones re-enters): Smith / Jones | F9/ DH

T5: Smith returns to game (legal substitution - Smith re-enters): Smith / Jones | F9/ DH

B6: Jones enters game to hit (illegal substitution)

So, if the coach is protesting anything before the 6th, then he's got no footing.

[johnnyg08]

Just now, yawetag said:

This is up to the BOD and the by-laws. I'm giving some leeway to the coach - it's not like they write these every day. However, just like an appeal of a missed runner, he'd better have the right player and the right situation.

However, the coach is wrong. Everything that happened between the 2nd and 5th was legal. I'll use red to signify first removal (I circle on my card); green for re-entry; strikethrough and underline for second removal

I've got Smith as F9; Jones as DH for Smith. Lineup card similar to: Smith / Jones | F9 / DH

B2: Jones hits (legal)

B2: Smith runs for Jones (legal substitution - DH is elimated from the game): Smith / Jones | F9 / DH

T3: Smith remains in game (legal)

B4: Jones enters game to hit (legal substitution - Jones re-enters): Smith / Jones | F9/ DH

T5: Smith returns to game (legal substitution - Smith re-enters): Smith / Jones | F9/ DH

B6: Jones enters game to hit (illegal substitution)

So, if the coach is protesting anything before the 6th, then he's got no footing.

Exactly. Put the timing of everything aside. Even if they allow it, the written report does not detail any misapplication of the rules

[Jimurray]

6 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Exactly. Put the timing of everything aside. Even if they allow it, the written report does not detail any misapplication of the rules

What did your umpire rule in the ninth inning when an illegal sub was pointed out to him? If he ruled incorrectly the P word should have been used. 

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

What did your umpire rule in the ninth inning when an illegal sub was pointed out to him? If he ruled incorrectly the P word should have been used. 

Our umpire was not correct by rule. The "P" word was never used nor was the other team/Public Address notified. 

Had the team properly articulated their protest, it would have been upheld. 

[Jimurray]

3 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Our umpire was not correct by rule. The "P" word was never used nor was the other team/Public Address notified. 

Had the team properly articulated their protest, it would have been upheld. 

So they didn’t ask the umps to get together on the rule or voice disagreement with his allowing the sub to remain in the lineup?