Protesting an illegal substitute?

[johnnyg08]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

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?  

Well, this was a one umpire game. So there wasn't anybody to collaborate with. 

 

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, yawetag said:

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.

 

 

3 hours 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, I'm curious...when the problem is discovered in the 9th what is the proper remedy?  Is he ejected and subbed for a legal bench player (and the old F9 is also out?)...and if no bench players it's a forfeit?

Was the infraction, as not remedied in the 9th inning, and beyond, material to the game's result? I'm assuming the remedy can't undo anything the illegal DH did in the 6-9th inning, even if he hit three home runs.   So, if he knocked in the winning run in the 11th that might be one thing...but if he went 0-2 in the 9-11th innings, the protest could still be denied.

 

Since this was an illegal player, and as yawetag points out, he's always an illegal player, you could technically protest right to the last play of the game (and into the next morning)...because even at that point the player is illegal...so, if you tell the umpire, again, hey, he's illegal, and the ump fails to act, you can protest...but, again, then the protest would be measured to the impact of the incorrect ruling from the point of the protest, not any point before it....so, you better hope the illegal substitute hit in the walk off run (unless remedying this results in a forfeit).

4 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

and they only get one shot at protesting a rule misapplication. 

 Do they?  I agree that that's how it should be, but is that the rule?   Or would they get a chance to "clarify" and resubmit their report to explain the illegal substitution?

[johnnyg08]

Well, the game is over. I'm not sure how you'd amend a protest after the game is over since the initial protest was about legal substitutions.

I'm not convinced that this protest was even valid. 

[yawetag]

What happened between the original illegal entry and the point of discovery is immaterial - unless the illegal player was involved in the last play. Fed has prescribed rules on what to do if the player was the batter or the fielder. OBR simply says to remove them.

As for the illegal player's replacement, OBR says if the illegal entry is discovered as the change is being made, the original player can remain in the game. Other than that, they must be replaced by a player who hasn't been in the game.

[beerguy55]

14 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Well, the game is over. I'm not sure how you'd amend a protest after the game is over since the initial protest was about legal substitutions.

I'm not convinced that this protest was even valid. 

Here's my bureaucratic view...

Whether or not a protest was correctly announced aside...

Depends on the language in the summary...I guess.  The protest was, I gather, that the DH was an illegal player...he shouldn't be in the line up, he shouldn't be hitting, he shouldn't be fielding, whatever. 

So, in my hypothetical summary to you, I demonstrate that the DH was legally subbed in and out by the 5th inning, I have demonstrated that, legally, he was substituted out of the game.  My protest summary shows you all the legal substitutions in the 2nd through 5th inning that result in a final state of the DH being removed from the game.  I don't really have to show you when he illegally entered the game - when the actual illegal substitution occurred.

If my protest is that he is in the game illegally in the ninth (at the time I spoke to the umpire), it doesn't really matter when he illegally entered the game.  My protest summary demonstrated that he was legally subbed out of the game in the 5th.  And I demonstrated to the umpire, and presumably the protest committee, that he was playing in the game in the 9th.   He is illegal in the 9th.

On those grounds (no other considerations at this point) I have made a valid protest which demonstrates an illegal substitution (if implicit), and a failure by the umpire to remedy the presence of an illegal player when it was shown to him  (in the 9th inning upon discovering the error the DH should have been removed) - I assume that F9 actually stayed in on defense, so we're not worried about subbing in for the DH...he just needs to be removed and F9 has to bat (or they can sub out F9)...I think.

Now, if you require me to demonstrate when the player was illegally substituted (I believe) I should be allowed the opportunity to update my protest summary to reflect that, or at least answer that question.

 

But that would still leave part B of the protest - did the umpire's failure to remedy the illegal player in the 9th materially impact the outcome of the game - based on what happened after that point?  Was the DH a factor in the result?  If he K'd in his only at bat after the 9th, you probably reject the protest anyway and it's all moot and academic.  If he factored into the winning run, different story.

As such, since he's always an illegal player, and since a protest can be filed up to noon the next day if it involves the final play of the game - if the final play of the game was the DH knocking in the winning run it could be a legal protest that should be upheld....and if the removal of the DH would result in a forfeit then if the DH was still in the lineup for the last play of the game there's probably a case to uphold the protest.

My $0.02.

 

 

[johnnyg08]

18 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

 

So, I'm curious...when the problem is discovered in the 9th what is the proper remedy?  Is he ejected and subbed for a legal bench player (and the old F9 is also out?)...and if no bench players it's a forfeit?

Was the infraction, as not remedied in the 9th inning, and beyond, material to the game's result? I'm assuming the remedy can't undo anything the illegal DH did in the 6-9th inning, even if he hit three home runs.   So, if he knocked in the winning run in the 11th that might be one thing...but if he went 0-2 in the 9-11th innings, the protest could still be denied.

 

Since this was an illegal player, and as yawetag points out, he's always an illegal player, you could technically protest right to the last play of the game (and into the next morning)...because even at that point the player is illegal...so, if you tell the umpire, again, hey, he's illegal, and the ump fails to act, you can protest...but, again, then the protest would be measured to the impact of the incorrect ruling from the point of the protest, not any point before it....so, you better hope the illegal substitute hit in the walk off run (unless remedying this results in a forfeit).

 Do they?  I agree that that's how it should be, but is that the rule?   Or would they get a chance to "clarify" and resubmit their report to explain the illegal substitution?

Nope, the written narrative submitted involved F9s reentry into the game in the T5 and ended there. It made no mention of anything illegal. If he truly understood what he was protesting wouldn't he have taken a little more time to address one illegal action, but instead, was told that those were legal substitutions and then chose to say...well, then I'm going to argue this.

The exact reason for the protest needs to be brought up during the game. Shouldn't we infer that the reason for the protest was in the first written narrative? 

The manager must be able to articulate the exact reason for the protest. He thought he did and was wrong. So now, approaching a week later, gets to move the goal post giving the umpire or the other team no option to fix the issue since the game is over? 

I'm not convinced that would be allowed. 

Certainly, the rules give the league wide latitude to do pretty much whatever it wishes, rules be damned. 

[Senor Azul]

The OBR rule covering illegal substitutes is 5.10(d) and its following Comment. It states that all plays that occurred while the illegal substitute was in the game stand. It also tells us that if the illegal substitute is discovered after he has already played that we must remove him and the player he substituted for—in other words, a third player must enter the game.

2019 OBR 5.10(d) A player once removed from a game shall not re-enter that game. If a player who has been substituted for attempts to reenter, or re-enters, the game in any capacity, the umpire-in-chief shall direct the player’s manager to remove such player from the game immediately upon noticing the player’s presence or upon being informed of the player’s improper presence by another umpire or by either manager. If such direction to remove the substituted for player occurs before play commences with the player improperly in the game, then the substitute player may enter the game. If such direction to remove the substituted-for player occurs after play has commenced with the substituted-for player in the game, then the substitute player shall be deemed to have been removed from the game (in addition to the removal of the substituted-for player) and shall not enter the game. If a substitute enters the game in place of a player-manager, the manager may thereafter go to the coaching lines at his discretion. When two or more substitute players of the defensive team enter the game at the same time, the manager shall, immediately before they take their positions as fielders, designate to the umpire-in-chief such players’ positions in the team’s batting order and the umpire-in-chief shall so notify the Official Scorer. If this information is not immediately given to the umpire-in-chief, he shall have authority to designate the substitutes’ places in the batting order.

Rule 5.10(d) Comment: A pitcher may change to another position only once during the same inning; e.g. the pitcher will not be allowed to assume a position other than a pitcher more than once in the same inning. Any player other than a pitcher substituted for an injured player shall be allowed five warm-up throws. (See Rule 5.07(b) for pitchers.) Any play that occurs while a player appears in a game after having been substituted for shall count. If, in an umpire’s judgment, the player re-entered the game knowing that he had been removed, the umpire may eject the manager.

[yawetag]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

But that would still leave part B of the protest - did the umpire's failure to remedy the illegal player in the 9th materially impact the outcome of the game - based on what happened after that point?  Was the DH a factor in the result?  If he K'd in his only at bat after the 9th, you probably reject the protest anyway and it's all moot and academic.  If he factored into the winning run, different story.

As such, since he's always an illegal player, and since a protest can be filed up to noon the next day if it involves the final play of the game - if the final play of the game was the DH knocking in the winning run it could be a legal protest that should be upheld....and if the removal of the DH would result in a forfeit then if the DH was still in the lineup for the last play of the game there's probably a case to uphold the protest.

What if he made a stellar leap to rob the game-winning home run? Is that a material impact? My point is that "material impact" may not always be with a bat in his hand.

[johnnyg08]

8 minutes ago, yawetag said:

What if he made a stellar leap to rob the game-winning home run? Is that a material impact? My point is that "material impact" may not always be with a bat in his hand.

I'd imagine the standard is rather low for determining "material impact" 

[beerguy55]

1 minute ago, yawetag said:

What if he made a stellar leap to rob the game-winning home run? Is that a material impact? My point is that "material impact" may not always be with a bat in his hand.

I agree 100% - I'm making the assumption that he remained in the game as the DH, and that F9 remained in the field.   If he actually came back to both hit and play F9 we have a different possible issue - as the remedy is he has to get subbed out, and now you have the risk of forfeit if there is no one left on the bench (as the old F9 can't go back in)...and then yes, ANY defensive play he made could be material.

58 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Nope, the written narrative submitted involved F9s reentry into the game in the T5 and ended there. It made no mention of anything illegal. If he truly understood what he was protesting wouldn't he have taken a little more time to address one illegal action, but instead, was told that those were legal substitutions and then chose to say...well, then I'm going to argue this.

Well, he's arguing that SOMETHING is illegal.  Did he not, somewhere in the summary, or the title, or the subject line of an email, or in a preface or introduction, state what he thought was illegal - or was the summary "this is what happened - fix this"?  Or does he explicitly claim F9's re-entry was illegal, and here's why.

Because I would have to say "that's just weird".  That implies that he was arguing with the ump in the ninth inning about the presence of the right fielder.

If his protest summary/title/introduction mentions anything about "the DH batting in the ninth", then that would at least put context to the summary of legal substitutions.

 

[johnnyg08]

7 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I agree 100% - I'm making the assumption that he remained in the game as the DH, and that F9 remained in the field.   If he actually came back to both hit and play F9 we have a different possible issue - as the remedy is he has to get subbed out, and now you have the risk of forfeit if there is no one left on the bench (as the old F9 can't go back in)...and then yes, ANY defensive play he made could be material.

Well, he's arguing that SOMETHING is illegal.  Did he not, somewhere in the summary, or the title, or the subject line of an email, or in a preface or introduction, state what he thought was illegal - or was the summary "this is what happened - fix this"?  Or does he explicitly claim F9's re-entry was illegal, and here's why.

Because I would have to say "that's just weird".  That implies that he was arguing with the ump in the ninth inning about the presence of the right fielder.

If his protest summary/title/introduction mentions anything about "the DH batting in the ninth", then that would at least put context to the summary of legal substitutions.

 

Nope, the statement read that he felt that when F9 went back into the game in the T5 after the former DH reentered to hit for him in the B4, that F9 was illegal at that point, when in fact F9 had only left the game one time (when the former DH batted for him in the B4). There was no mention of the former DH being done after F9 reentered in the T5 or when the former DH illegally batted in the B6 or further down the line until he said some version of "they can't do that" in the 9th inning but still failed to articulate what they couldn't do in his narrative. 

[beerguy55]

Just now, johnnyg08 said:

Nope, the statement read that he felt that when F9 went back into the game in the T5 after the former DH reentered to hit for him in the B4, that F9 was illegal at that point, when in fact F9 had only left the game one time (when the former DH batted for him in the B4). There was no mention of the former DH being done after F9 reentered in the T5 or when the former DH illegally batted in the B6. 

Well Christ - what an idiot.   I can't even fathom why he would argue that...unless F9 made some ridiculous catch in the ninth inning to save the game.   Then yes, moving the goal posts a week later is ridiculous.

I could see an argument to let it go if the protest was handled the next day conversationally - something like "protest is denied, F9's sub in T5 was legal" and the manager IMMEDIATELY says "then why did DH bat the rest of the game?"...at which point you say "well, that's not your protest, you never mentioned anything about the DH, and you didn't even mention that to the ump when you discussed F9 in the 9th" to which he will say "huh?  but but but"...

or he could reasonably say "OK, my mistake, I thought F9 was illegal and DH was legal, but I see now it's the reverse - can I amend my protest"....and there it gets dicey...because we assume that the umpire didn't have an opportunity to correct that infraction, because it wasn't raised to his attention at any point of the game.   But it would at least be reasonable, if not necessarily correct, to review.   But, at that point, if you allow it, I think you can only amend it from the last play of the game - so it wold only matter if the DH materially impacted the last play, or if removing him from the lineup would result in a forfeit.