Skip navigation

3179 Views 19 Replies Latest reply: Jun 28, 2011 7:01 PM by Mark__P RSS 1 2 Previous Next
Rookie_91 Amateur 19 posts since
Jul 12, 2007
Currently Being Moderated

Jun 24, 2011 10:32 PM

Mandatory play/illegal substitution

Little League 11/12 district game. Here is what happened:

 

Visiting team with 13 players, starter bats in the 1st, plays defense bottom of 1st, bats again in top of 2nd (makes last out). Sub replaces starter and plays bottom of 2nd. The sub is announced to official scorekeeper, but goes unnoticed by the home team scorekeeper. Sub does not bat in top of 3rd. Starter is re-inserted and plays defense in bottom of 3rd (still unnoticed by home team). After bottom of 3rd is complete, home team questions offical scorekeeper about subs because they noticed a different starter (other than the one in question) had been replaced in the field for the bottom of 3rd. During conversation, visiting manager confirms the situation above stating that the sub had completed his 3 defensive outs and that he would put him back in to bat "later". Unquestionably, the sub did not complete his MP before the starter was re-inserted.

 

Home team protested, protest committee denied based on "it wasn't protested before the next pitch", manager appealed to DA, DA ruled that starter and sub would both be removed from the game and replaced by another eligible sub, manager accepted, and play continued.

 

Hope that is clear enough and here are my questions:

 

1. Is this a mandatory play violation or an illegal substitution?

2. Was the DA's ruling proper? If not, what should have been the ruling?

  • Rich_Ives Legend 1,283 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    1. Jun 25, 2011 5:39 AM (in response to Rookie_91)
    Re: Mandatory play/illegal substitution

    Yes it's an MPR violation.  The sub cannot be removed prior to completing MPR.

     

    Starter cannot re-enter until his sub has completed (essentially) MPR.

     

    Sub cannot re-enter.

     

    Therefore because the sub was removed he cannot re-enter and because the sub did not complete MPR the starter cannot re-enter.

     

    The "next pitch or play" doesn't apply to improper subs - see 4.19(d)

     

    Yes - the call was correct.

  • Blue608 Amateur 9 posts since
    Feb 26, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    2. Jun 25, 2011 8:39 AM (in response to Rich_Ives)
    Re: Mandatory play/illegal substitution

    What was the Umpire doing? I log all subs on my line up card. No way am I allowing a starter to re enter if it is illegal, my DA would have my behind.

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    3. Jun 25, 2011 8:48 AM (in response to Rich_Ives)
    Re: Mandatory play/illegal substitution

    Shouldn't we be going to the LL tournament rules to resolve the OP's situation??

     

    The clue:  Given, the OP is talking MPR three(3) defensive outs, it appears it was a Williamsport T-game.

    Regular season Rule  4.19(d)  giving way to #10(c)--page T-19.---and T-Rules re "PROTESTS"---[where its noted the T-Rule replaces regular season Rule 4.19]---top of page T-11.

     

    Frank!

  • Rich_Ives Legend 1,283 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    5. Jun 25, 2011 2:22 PM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Mandatory play/illegal substitution

    Where's the "delete" key?

  • Rich_Ives Legend 1,283 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    6. Jun 25, 2011 2:21 PM (in response to Rookie_91)
    Re: Mandatory play/illegal substitution

    If it's a WP Tournament game whats with the "protest committee" and "appeal to DA"?  Theat's NOT how in works in THE tournament.

     

    And under T-Rules the result is the same.  Sub cannot come out before meeting MPR. SO starter cannot re-enter yet, SO sub cannot re-enter for the starter. Both are D O N E for the game.

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    9. Jun 26, 2011 7:08 AM (in response to Rookie_91)
    Re: Mandatory play/illegal substitution

    Under T-protest rules--page T-11......the DA's ruling is  not necessarily the "FINAL" decision....unless BOTH managers accept his/her ruling.

     

    If not, the protest moves up the Chain of Command to the TC in  Williamsport at the request of the protesting manager.

     

    In the case presented by the OP.... ONLY the visiting--[offending]- team manager--[-as reported in the OP]-- agreed to accept the DA'a ruling.

    If the home team (protesting) manager was of the "mind' in seeking a more stringent penalty---For Ex: a foreit ruling---he/she could reject the DA's ruling.

    [not saying the TC would rule a forfeit----but, the possibility exists]

     

    Indeed, per the OP, within the rules, the protesting manager DID NOT accept the TD's decision, moving the protest on to the next person in the Chain of Command----the DA.

     

    As far as the protest having to be made "before the next pitch or play"-----in the case of a manager's failure to meet the MPR requirements, an MPR violation supported by Rule 10(c)--page T-19------[which appears to be the case presented by the OP]----the home team  manager's  protest can be made before the umpires leave the field. Note 3, page T-11.  Flying in the face of Note 1. same page.

     

    Frank!

  • Phillieball Pro 99 posts since
    Mar 23, 2001
    Currently Being Moderated
    10. Jun 26, 2011 8:12 AM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Mandatory play/illegal substitution

    I think that there are two issues that are getting caught up in each other; they need to be separated.

     

    Tournament rule 10(f) says that protests of illegal substitutions must be made before the next pitch.  Isn't putting the starter back in before the sub got MPR an illegal substitution that would be subject to that?  If so, the TD was correct.

     

    The MRP violation itself would be if the sub didn't get the at-bat eventually.  Since the sub didn't get the at-bat in this case, doesn't the opposing manager still have a valid protest that MPR was not met?  And can't that protest be made even after the umpires leave the field under the rule change?  (That change is announced on page 1 of the Green Book but I can't find it in the text of T-9.  Do you see it?)

     

    If the sub had the at-bat "later", would MPR then have been met?  The T-9 rule defines MPR but I don't see that it actually says that the at-bat and the defensive outs have to be during the first substitution.  T-10 says that if they aren't, then it's an illegal substitution, not an MPR violation.

  • Frank_B Legend 1,324 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    11. Jun 26, 2011 12:36 PM (in response to Phillieball)
    Re: Mandatory play/illegal substitution

    PB: Agreed----there does exist two issues in the OP's scenario..... cited #1 & #2 below, this post.  Re an illegal sub requiring a protest before the next pitch or play.

    The OP wrote the starter re-entered illegally on defense at the bottom of the 3rd, and completed the inning.

    The opportunity for a protest before "the next pitch or play"----WAS  apparently  correctly ruled on.

     

    The 2011 rule change you cited, allowing Williamsport to take action  involving an MPR violation is in bold type on page T-18.

     

    Now, IMO--- hypothetically, absent 10(f) being a factor in the OP's scenario, the protesting manager would have had the luxury of choosing one of two(2) rule "weapons" options as support for filing a protest.

     

    Viz:

    1)---Illegal substitution----before the next pitch or play.

    OR---

    2)---MPR violation before the umpires leave the field.

         And if the potential protesting manager, because he won the game, chooses not to file an MPR protest; then the TC, if the MPR violation is brought to THEIR attention..... say, for example, by a delegated game TD.   By the wording in the new rule.... the TC can levy sanctions/penalties against the offending manager absent any input from an offended manager.

     

    Back to reality, IMO--: In the OP's scenario, #2 (above) would better serve the protesting manager.

     

    Frank!

  • Mark__P Pro 112 posts since
    Jun 26, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    12. Jun 26, 2011 12:59 PM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: Mandatory play/illegal substitution

    I don't understand how there can be an MPR protest in the middle of the game.

     

    Suppose, taking some liberties with the original situation, that during the 4th, 5th and 6th innings, enough players got injured so that only nine players were left and the sub, made ineligible for re-entry because of the protest, was put back into the game and got his at-bat. Would that satisfy tournament rule 9 (MPR)?  What if the game ended after 4 inningss due to the 10 run rule so that by 9b, there is an exception to the mandatory play requirement?

     

    Having said that, it seems clear to me that the only infraction in the first three innings was improper substitution, specifically violation of 10 c.

     

    That brings us to 10 f, "Improper substitution is a basis for protest. Protests involving improper substituion not resolved before the next pitch or play shall not be considered."

     

    It has always seemed patently unfair that a sub can be entered into the game without telling anyone and then the offended team is not allowed to protest because a pitch was made while (almost) everyone is unaware that a substitution has been made.

     

    I think a much more CS&FP interpretation of 10f is that, "Once a protest is lodged for an improper substitution, it must be resolved before the next pitch or play."

     

    Which is exactly what happened in the OP. There was an improper sub. There was a protest. There was a resolution before the next pitch or play.

     

    In all likelihood, the resolution would lead to the sub not meeting MPR, which could then be protested once the game is over.

     

    All IMHO.

     

    Thanks,
    Mark

  • Michael_Taylor Community Moderator 318 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    13. Jun 26, 2011 4:53 PM (in response to Mark__P)
    Re: Mandatory play/illegal substitution

    LL has been very clear that a starter can leave before he meets MPR, a sub can not. A sub has to meet all parts of the MPR before being removed.





    Michael S. Taylor

  • Mark__P Pro 112 posts since
    Jun 26, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    14. Jun 26, 2011 6:46 PM (in response to Michael_Taylor)
    Re: Mandatory play/illegal substitution
    LL has been very clear that a starter can leave before he meets MPR, a sub can not. A sub has to meet all parts of the MPR before being removed.

     

    I don't think anyone is debating this point. The question revolves around what happens afterward and why.

1 2 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...