Lineup / Substitution Head Scratcher

[agdz59]

This is a good one that both me and my partner kicked but, in the end, both coaches were satisfied with the way we handled it and we completed the game without protest or controversy.  I'm just going to lay out the facts and let you all tell me how far we kicked it.

Situation: 11U travel ball championship game.

Rule Set: NFHS

At the plate meeting, my partner (plate) and I (field) accepted the following lineup from the visiting team:
 

No  Name          Position

11  Able           4
18  Baker          2
13  Casey          1
99  Douglas        7
00  Everett        6
14  Farmer         8
01  Gregg          9
08  Howser         5
05  Ingles         DH

Substitutes
02  James
73  King

 

In the top of the 2nd inning:

1. Howser strikes out.
2. #23 Lawrence doubles.
3. Ingles bats to a 1-1 count.

At this point, the defensive coach calls time and informs the plate umpire that #23 was not in the starting lineup.

My partner and I then had a meeting with the two coaches.  We ruled that #23 (Lawrence) was an unannounced substitute for Ingles.  As such, the correct batter was Able.  The offense switched out Able for Ingles and we informed the offense that Ingles and Lawrence were now married to each other for the remainder of the game.

The inning proceeded with Able and Baker making outs.

Before the bottom half of the 2nd commenced, I rechecked the lineup and noticed that it had 73 King as a sub  but 23 Lawrence was not on the lineup. Lawrence had taken the field and was warming up as the 2B.  I informed my partner that what we really had was an illegal substitution NOT an unannounced substitution.

We informed the visiting team that Lawrence was not on the lineup they gave us and an assistant coach admitted he screwed up - that Lawrence was supposed to be in the lineup before Ingles but he inadvertently left him off.  We ruled that Lawrence must leave the game.

They inserted King in his place and we ruled that he was the proper substitute for Ingles.

My partner informed the home team and the official book for the game and we proceeded without further issue.

Well, how did we do?

[Replacematt]

22 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

This is a good one that both me and my partner kicked but, in the end, both coaches were satisfied with the way we handled it and we completed the game without protest or controversy.  I'm just going to lay out the facts and let you all tell me how far we kicked it.

Situation: 11U travel ball championship game.

Rule Set: NFHS

At the plate meeting, my partner (plate) and I (field) accepted the following lineup from the visiting team:
 

No  Name          Position

11  Able           4
18  Baker          2
13  Casey          1
99  Douglas        7
00  Everett        6
14  Farmer         8
01  Gregg          9
08  Howser         5
05  Ingles         DH

Substitutes
02  James
73  King

 

In the top of the 2nd inning:

1. Howser strikes out.
2. #23 Lawrence doubles.
3. Ingles bats to a 1-1 count.

At this point, the defensive coach calls time and informs the plate umpire that #23 was not in the starting lineup.

My partner and I then had a meeting with the two coaches.  We ruled that #23 (Lawrence) was an unannounced substitute for Ingles.  As such, the correct batter was Able.  The offense switched out Able for Ingles and we informed the offense that Ingles and Lawrence were now married to each other for the remainder of the game.

The inning proceeded with Able and Baker making outs.

Before the bottom half of the 2nd commenced, I rechecked the lineup and noticed that it had 73 King as a sub  but 23 Lawrence was not on the lineup. Lawrence had taken the field and was warming up as the 2B.  I informed my partner that what we really had was an illegal substitution NOT an unannounced substitution.

We informed the visiting team that Lawrence was not on the lineup they gave us and an assistant coach admitted he screwed up - that Lawrence was supposed to be in the lineup before Ingles but he inadvertently left him off.  We ruled that Lawrence must leave the game.

They inserted King in his place and we ruled that he was the proper substitute for Ingles.

My partner informed the home team and the official book for the game and we proceeded without further issue.

Well, how did we do?

Let's break this down.

You have a 9-player lineup. You have a DH listed. Everyone accepted the lineup.

Is there a 10- or 9-player lineup once that happens? 

[agdz59]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

Let's break this down.

You have a 9-player lineup. You have a DH listed. Everyone accepted the lineup.

Is there a 10- or 9-player lineup once that happens? 

That's a question even our tournament director wasn't sure about!  I don't know.  But we ruled they lost the DH and had to marry a proper substitute for the illegal one (Lawrence) we paired with Ingles. They chose King and we played on.

[noumpere]

Under NFHS rules,. while subs are "required" to be listed, there's no penalty if they are not.  You were right to rule an unannounced sub, but after that you kicked it.

[agdz59]

11 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Under NFHS rules,. while subs are "required" to be listed, there's no penalty if they are not.  You were right to rule an unannounced sub, but after that you kicked it.

I'm looking at rules 1-1-2, 2-36, and 3 and don't see any indication of the no penalty rule for unlisted subs.  My interpretation of "required" is required ie: they MUST be there or they are not legal substitutes.  Is there an interpretation somewhere that makes your interpretation clear? 

[Jimurray]

7 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

I'm looking at rules 1-1-2, 2-36, and 3 and don't see any indication of the no penalty rule for unlisted subs.  My interpretation of "required" is required ie: they MUST be there or they are not legal substitutes.  Is there an interpretation somewhere that makes your interpretation clear? 

I can't post them but the casebook makes it clear that there is no penalty and unlisted subs can participate in the game. Do you see a penalty in the rulebook? Where do you see the word "required"?

[Jimurray]

56 minutes ago, Matt said:

Let's break this down.

You have a 9-player lineup. You have a DH listed. Everyone accepted the lineup.

Is there a 10- or 9-player lineup once that happens? 

PU should have verified that #9 batter was a F3/DH or just a DH batting for the 10 spot which should have been listed.

[agdz59]

40 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I can't post them but the casebook makes it clear that there is no penalty and unlisted subs can participate in the game. Do you see a penalty in the rulebook? Where do you see the word "required"?

I saw required in noumpere's post.

2019 case book has nothing regarding unlisted substitutes in the section on substitutes.

The last two sentence of 1-1-2 in the 2019 rule book: "The umpire shall not accept the lineup card until all substitutes are listed. There is no penalty assessed. "  I interpret that to mean no penalty for late listed substitutes until acceptance.  Once accepted, I don't see this rule saying anything.  The fact the rule brings it up in this fashion would, outside of a case that I am not aware of, imply exactly what it says "all substitutes are listed."

Rule 2-36 says a substitute is a player "eligible to replace" a person already in the lineup. My interpretation from above  - unless there is a case I am not aware of is that an eligible replacement has to come from the lineup where starters and "All substitutes are listed".

That's what I've got - I am asking for a case that says otherwise if it exists.  I would also like to see the rules be explicit about this rather than leave it up to us to figure out what they mean.  Not the first time.

[agdz59]

37 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

PU should have verified that #9 batter was a F3/DH or just a DH batting for the 10 spot which should have been listed.

Yes - I admit we kicked this for sure. 

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, agdz59 said:

I'm looking at rules 1-1-2, 2-36, and 3 and don't see any indication of the no penalty rule for unlisted subs.  My interpretation of "required" is required ie: they MUST be there or they are not legal substitutes.  Is there an interpretation somewhere that makes your interpretation clear? 

See case 1.1.2A and 1.1.2C (2017 rule book).  Botha re similar to your play (a non-listed sub enters the game:  legal)

[Jimurray]

41 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

I saw required in noumpere's post.

2019 case book has nothing regarding unlisted substitutes in the section on substitutes.

The last two sentence of 1-1-2 in the 2019 rule book: "The umpire shall not accept the lineup card until all substitutes are listed. There is no penalty assessed. "  I interpret that to mean no penalty for late listed substitutes until acceptance.  Once accepted, I don't see this rule saying anything.  The fact the rule brings it up in this fashion would, outside of a case that I am not aware of, imply exactly what it says "all substitutes are listed."

Rule 2-36 says a substitute is a player "eligible to replace" a person already in the lineup. My interpretation from above  - unless there is a case I am not aware of is that an eligible replacement has to come from the lineup where starters and "All substitutes are listed".

That's what I've got - I am asking for a case that says otherwise if it exists.  I would also like to see the rules be explicit about this rather than leave it up to us to figure out what they mean.  Not the first time.

@noumpere should have used “should” rather than “required” but sometimes us old folks shoot from the hip trying to give a quick solution. The result would be the same however, no penalty. 

[Kevin_K]

For clarification on the lineup cards (1-1-2) on slides 2-4

http://www.haumpires.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2011-NFHS-Baseball-Rules-PowerPoint-Presentation.pdf

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

PU should have verified that #9 batter was a F3/DH or just a DH batting for the 10 spot which should have been listed.

Yep, and that didn't happen. Thus, we need to know if it's 9 or 10, because that will give us the proper answer. I will say that I don't think your first option is possible, given that there was a position 1 listed.

I will further say (for the conversation as a whole) that I don't think that 23 being unlisted has any bearing on the issue at hand.

 

[isired]

I assumed DH was hitting for the first baseman, no?

Still begs the question "Who's on First?"

[couldn't help myself]

[Replacematt]

6 minutes ago, isired said:

I assumed DH was hitting for the first baseman, no?

Still begs the question "Who's on First?"

[couldn't help myself]

If the rules support assuming a 10-player lineup, then that would be the case. However, we do not have an answer to that yet.

There would also be an issue as to who could rightfully occupy the #9 slot in conjunction with Ingles.

[Jimurray]

22 minutes ago, Matt said:

Yep, and that didn't happen. Thus, we need to know if it's 9 or 10, because that will give us the proper answer. I will say that I don't think your first option is possible, given that there was a position 1 listed.

I will further say (for the conversation as a whole) that I don't think that 23 being unlisted has any bearing on the issue at hand.

 

Wouldn’t 1 be the pitcher. What wasn’t listed was 3. Who could be DH’d for or actually be his own DH this year in FED

[Replacematt]

7 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Wouldn’t 1 be the pitcher. What wasn’t listed was 3. Who could be DH’d for or actually be his own DH this year in FED

Wasn't familiar with that part of it. 

Anyway, we still need to know if it's 9 or 10.

I'm leaning towards 9, as there is an advantage to be gained if it is 10--it allows the team in error to select their player for that spot after the plate conference. Thus, there is no DH, and Lawrence for Ingles was legal; Ingles batting after Lawrence was an illegal substitution.

[isired]

If the rules support assuming a 10-player lineup, then that would be the case. However, we do not have an answer to that yet.
There would also be an issue as to who could rightfully occupy the #9 slot in conjunction with Ingles.

You can bat 9 with a DH for any position player.

[Jimurray]

8 minutes ago, isired said:

26 minutes ago, Matt said:

If the rules support assuming a 10-player lineup, then that would be the case. However, we do not have an answer to that yet.
There would also be an issue as to who could rightfully occupy the #9 slot in conjunction with Ingles.

You can bat 9 with a DH for any position player.

You can bat 9 with the DH being his own defensive player. 

[Jimurray]

34 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

You can bat 9 with the DH being his own defensive player. 

When #23 Lawrence batted for Ingles they lost the DH and Lawrence is in the game as F3. Replace Ingles with Able with a 1-1 count. Ingles can re enter once. I think

[Senor Azul]

NFHS 2011 Baseball Rules Changes

1-1-2
Addition: The umpire shall not accept the lineup card until all substitutes are listed. There is no penalty assessed.
Rationale: Having all known substitutes listed will speed up substitution and player changes. A coach will still be able to add a substitute to the game with no penalty.

Rule 1-1-2 now requires coaches to list all known substitutes on the lineup card before the umpire accepts it. Coaches will still be able to add a substitute without a penalty, but this should speed up substitutions and player changes during the game.
 

2011 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 2: In the bottom of the fourth inning, Jones comes to the plate to pinch-hit for Smith. The plate umpire checks the lineup card and finds that Jones was not listed as a possible substitute. The opposing coach argues that since Jones was not listed as a substitute at the start of the game, he cannot pinch-hit. RULING: The plate umpire shall accept the substitution, make the appropriate change on the lineup card and notify the opposing team and official scorer. Jones may pinch-hit for Smith. There is no penalty. (1-1-2)

 

 

[agdz59]

38 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

NFHS 2011 Baseball Rules Changes

1-1-2
Addition: The umpire shall not accept the lineup card until all substitutes are listed. There is no penalty assessed.
Rationale: Having all known substitutes listed will speed up substitution and player changes. A coach will still be able to add a substitute to the game with no penalty.

Rule 1-1-2 now requires coaches to list all known substitutes on the lineup card before the umpire accepts it. Coaches will still be able to add a substitute without a penalty, but this should speed up substitutions and player changes during the game.
 

2011 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 2: In the bottom of the fourth inning, Jones comes to the plate to pinch-hit for Smith. The plate umpire checks the lineup card and finds that Jones was not listed as a possible substitute. The opposing coach argues that since Jones was not listed as a substitute at the start of the game, he cannot pinch-hit. RULING: The plate umpire shall accept the substitution, make the appropriate change on the lineup card and notify the opposing team and official scorer. Jones may pinch-hit for Smith. There is no penalty. (1-1-2)

 

 

Thanks Senor and the others who pointed to this case. Kind of surprised by this as it allows a team to recruit substitutes from the crowd.  As long as someone isn't checking rosters (and who would be in a position to do so ) what's to stop a team from doing that? But now I know and I appreciate it.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, agdz59 said:

Thanks Senor and the others who pointed to this case. Kind of surprised by this as it allows a team to recruit substitutes from the crowd.  As long as someone isn't checking rosters (and who would be in a position to do so ) what's to stop a team from doing that? But now I know and I appreciate it.

"From the crowd" is a bit of a stretch, but there's a case play or two where the JV game ends before the V game and then the JV players are allowed (and, I think, in one case required) to play on on V team

[beerguy55]

OK - I'll ask something that I don't think has been addressed/asked above - and maybe it's entirely irrelevant...I'm asking because I don't know.

This issue happened in the top of the 2nd.

"Someone" played F3 in the bottom of the first (I hope)...my presumption is it was Lawrence.   Does that factor into anything here, or does it simply further solidify that Lawrence is subbing for Ingles??   Or because we really don't "know" who played F3 in that half inning we must ignore anything that happened then?

This looks to me like the DH is really an EH (extra hitter)...batting ten players?

[lawump]

21 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

OK - I'll ask something that I don't think has been addressed/asked above - and maybe it's entirely irrelevant...I'm asking because I don't know.

This issue happened in the top of the 2nd.

"Someone" played F3 in the bottom of the first (I hope)...my presumption is it was Lawrence.   Does that factor into anything here, or does it simply further solidify that Lawrence is subbing for Ingles??   Or because we really don't "know" who played F3 in that half inning we must ignore anything that happened then?

This looks to me like the DH is really an EH (extra hitter)...batting ten players?

The game management lesson in this scenario is that the line-ups must be reviewed carefully at the plate meeting, and the plate umpire has to ask a couple of questions.  These include confirming for whom the DH is batting (including batting for himself if he is a DP/DH) and confirming that all of the team's substitutes are listed.  These should be routine procedures followed at each and every plate conference.  

So, I'm with beerguy55...who played on defense in the first inning?  For whom was the listed DH batting?  We cannot fully evaluate how you handled this until we know that information.  

I'm not trying to pile on @agdz59 (but you did ask for an evaluation), but it seems to me that a failure to fully clarify with the head coach at the plate meeting for whom the DH was batting has caused a lot of issues for your crew. 

[agdz59]

2 hours ago, lawump said:

The game management lesson in this scenario is that the line-ups must be reviewed carefully at the plate meeting, and the plate umpire has to ask a couple of questions.  These include confirming for whom the DH is batting (including batting for himself if he is a DP/DH) and confirming that all of the team's substitutes are listed.  These should be routine procedures followed at each and every plate conference.  

So, I'm with beerguy55...who played on defense in the first inning?  For whom was the listed DH batting?  We cannot fully evaluate how you handled this until we know that information.  

I'm not trying to pile on @agdz59 (but you did ask for an evaluation), but it seems to me that a failure to fully clarify with the head coach at the plate meeting for whom the DH was batting has caused a lot of issues for your crew. 

No question that was our biggest screw up.  We were too busy socializing with the coaches who we've seen tons of times at these tournaments of ours and know personally.  Both coaches were from out of town and it was a cold day.  We were starting early so we could get them on the road and us out of the cold.  We were not careful and that is the basic lesson - never short change your lineup review no matter how familiar you are with the parties involved - everybody screws up from time to time.

I can pretty much guarantee that Lawrence was out there at 2nd.  He was an every game starter for these guys and, as the assistant admitted, he just forgot to put him on the list of starters.

Back to @beerguy55's question - its one i have as well.  Was Lawrence an immediate sub for Ingles in the bottom of the second when he took his position on the field?  2B isn't mentioned on the list of starters, so he almost has to be and they forfeit the DH at that time, right?  Which means when Ingles batted after Lawrence he was an illegal substitute for Able, correct?

Bottom line:  figure this out at the plate conference.