Jump to content


Photo

Illegal substitution


58 replies to this topic

#21 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 27 April 2015 - 03:09 PM

And I'm saying for those few leagues that aren't using CBO these days, I think it would be good to give the coach an avenue for late-game strategy. Allows the other sub to stay in the game and gives you a starter-for-starter quick swap. 

 

We allow teams to SPR all night long these days. When the rule first existed (originally only in Big League), it was once per inning and only with someone who had not yet appeared in the game. Then it was expanded into other divisions that had MPR and had to be adjusted... to create more flexibility and opportunities for kids to play.

 

So how would this not accomplish the same thing? 

 

Because it would let you put starter1 in for Sluggo then immediately send Sluggo up to the plate.



#22 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 27 April 2015 - 04:08 PM

Mike:
The problem with the RIM, as you well know, is that many leagues don't have a copy/don't use it.
They go by what is written in the rulebook, and, as I pointed out, your scenario does not violate anything in the rulebook!

As for SPR, as I recall, it's once per half-inning and only once per game for any individual player.

#23 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,315 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 27 April 2015 - 04:53 PM

Oh I get that, Lou... that's why I said the interp of it. It was the first year that I had the RIM that I had the ____ moment. 

 

SPR started as once per inning, once per player and the person on the bench could only be used one time. We've had a few variations since, some more liberal than we have now. 

 

Rich: I didn't really think of it that way and completely see your point. The instance I used was take the kid out for a pinch-hitter then send him back into the field similar to what we do at tourney time. 



#24 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 27 April 2015 - 09:23 PM

Rich: "Because it would let you put starter1 in for Sluggo then immediately send Sluggo up to the plate."

Pretty easy under the "old" rules but not as easy much under the current rules.
Currently, to put in S1 for Sluggo and then bring Sluggo up to the plate:
1) Sluggo would need to be due to bat or be on base, you can't pre-announce an offensive sub (and obviously you wouldn't do it if Sluggo was coming up to bat/at bat, so you could only do it if Sluggo was on base).
2) Sluggo would need to have been a starter and must have played the whole game up to that point (you can't reenter a sub or a starter that has already reentered once)

So, could it happen, Yes, but only in a semi-rare set of circumstances!

#25 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 27 April 2015 - 09:35 PM

Rich: "Because it would let you put starter1 in for Sluggo then immediately send Sluggo up to the plate."

Pretty easy under the "old" rules but not as easy much under the current rules.
Currently, to put in S1 for Sluggo and then bring Sluggo up to the plate:
1) Sluggo would need to be due to bat or be on base, you can't pre-announce an offensive sub (and obviously you wouldn't do it if Sluggo was coming up to bat/at bat, so you could only do it if Sluggo was on base).
2) Sluggo would need to have been a starter and must have played the whole game up to that point (you can't reenter a sub or a starter that has already reentered once)

So, could it happen, Yes, but only in a semi-rare set of circumstances!

 

Once you sub Joe for Sluggo you cannot re-enter Sluggo until Joe has (maybe again) batted once and played 6do (used to be 3do) after entering for Sluggo. Doesn't matter if Joe was a sub or a re-entering starter. Sluggo sits until Joe meets the 1-6 requirement (what he did before doesn't matter) from the point he went in for Sluggo. Been that way forever - since at least 1974 because that's when I started.



#26 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 27 April 2015 - 10:39 PM

Rich, what you say is "true" based on the common "interpretation/implementation" of 3.03 but it is not true by the way the rule is wactually written (see my previous post).

According to the rule "as written" if Stater 1 has met MPR and Starter 1 reenters for a Sub (not for another Starter) then Starter 1 can be replaced before playing 6 defensive outs an batting again.
Why, because in such a case 3.03(d) does not apply (Starter 1 did not reenter for a Starter he rendered for a Sub) and Note 1 is met (
Starter 1 has met MPR when replaced).

Again, that's not the way the rule is actually applied but it is the way the rule is actually written!!!

That said, every LL I have been in "interprets/implements" 3.03 exactly how you describe it.
Any "Sub" (an actual Sub or a reenteering Starter) has to meet 6/1 before being removed.

#27 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 27 April 2015 - 10:45 PM

Lou - read 3.03 carefully - there's nothing to interpret - it's all there.

 

3.03-- A player in the starting line-up who has been removed for a substitute may re-enter the game once, in any position in the batting order, provided:
1. his or her substitute has completed one time at bat and;
2. has played defensively for a minimum of six (6) consecutive outs.

 

5. a starter, (S1) re-entering the game as a substitute for another starter (S2) must then fulfill all conditions of a substitute (once at bat and six defensive outs) before starter (S2) can re-enter the game.



#28 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 27 April 2015 - 11:56 PM

Rich: I've read 3.03 and know what it "says".
If you read the "scenario" Starter 1 reentered for Sub 1 (the Sub that originally went in for him) he did NOT go in for another Starter so #5 does NOT apply.

So the question is, since Starter 1 reentered for the Sub that originally replaced him and he is now back into his original spot in the order and he has already met MPR can Starter 2 (who's Sub has met MPR so Starter 2 eligible to reenter once) replace Starter 1 prior to Starter 1 meeting MPR again?
If not, why not? (what part of 3.03 prevents it)

Again, just playing Devil's Advocate here !!!

#29 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 28 April 2015 - 03:41 AM

RIM:  The substitution requirement in 3.03 (1) and (2) states that a substitute must bat once and play six (6) consecutive defensive outs before being removed. This means that anyone who substitutes (a starter or non-starter) must meet the substitute requirements of 1 and 2.

 

Starter1, in re-entering, is subbing for Sub 1 and thus meets the "anyone who substitutes" criteria. So he cannot be removed prior to once again meeting the 1-6.



#30 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 28 April 2015 - 11:01 AM

I know what the Rule says and I know what the RIM says.
As I posted earlier, lots of leagues don't have/use the RIM, they go by what the Rule says.

So, Yes, the scenario is against the RIM but where it is against the Rule?

Again Rich, I'm not arguing that what you are saying/doing is wrong, I'm just saying the scenario is not against the Rule as it is written.

#31 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,315 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 28 April 2015 - 12:52 PM

Yes... you are both right. The interpretation provided in the RIM SIGNIFICANTLY changes things. And it goes back to the RIM (and its contents) not being widely-distributed and why that has always been a mistake. 



#32 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 28 April 2015 - 02:26 PM

When I heard that the 2015 Rulebook was going to include "Approved Rulings" I was hoping that that meant it would include the information from the RIM.
Nope, didn't happen.
So the information in the RIM (much of which is very useful) continues to only be available to those that have a copy of the RIM (which unfortunately does not include a lot of leagues).

Maybe next time !!!

#33 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,315 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 28 April 2015 - 02:41 PM

I know Lou has one.... :-)

 

 

I plan on whispering to a few folks that the old format of the RIM was more useful. I am not sure what the reason for the change was but I would rather see it as a complete document. I also think you will see more A.R.'s going into the rule book over time. It is like having the FAQ document for tournaments... there are still folks who don't know that it exists and that's a very important document. 

 

Where it gets tricky, Lou, is the book got so complicated when they chose to combine into one baseball and one softball. I wish they would go to two baseball and one softball, especially with the overlapping of kids and coaches in INT right now. If there were two baseball, I think you could better stress principles for C-P and minors and incorporate more RIM information to better educate.

 

I think you can get away with one softball book because there are so few differences. Not being a "big ball" expert, I can only think of two or three... 



#34 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 28 April 2015 - 03:11 PM

I agree that the 2015 RIM is a lot harder to use since they took the "rules" out.
You now need the RIM and a Rulebook where before all you needed was the RIM
As per my post above, I'd like to see the Rulebook include what's in the RIM (doubtful that will ever happen).

I do remember the "old days" when there were multiple BB Rulebooks.
It did get more "complicated" when they put all the divisions in one rulebook (even worse when they added Intermediate).

====================================================================================================
As for your comment on the Tournament FAQs, LL has changed the Tournament Resources Webpage.
On the old page it was pretty simple to scroll down the page and find (click) on what you wanted to see.
The new page (in my opinion) is much less user friendly.
In fact, I challenge you to try to find the Tournament FAQS or the Tournament Affidavits from the new Webpage !!!

#35 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 28 April 2015 - 03:26 PM

I know what the Rule says and I know what the RIM says.
As I posted earlier, lots of leagues don't have/use the RIM, they go by what the Rule says.

So, Yes, the scenario is against the RIM but where it is against the Rule?

Again Rich, I'm not arguing that what you are saying/doing is wrong, I'm just saying the scenario is not against the Rule as it is written.

 

The problem as I see it is that some folks can't get their heads around the idea that a starter re-entering is a substitute for the player he's replacing. Therefore the "sub must" rules apply.



#36 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 29 April 2015 - 03:49 PM

I should just let this go but what the heck !!!

OK Rich, so what exactly are the "sub must" rules that apply to a Starter replacing the Sub who originally replaced him? (Specific Rule References please)

#37 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 29 April 2015 - 07:42 PM

The starter reentering becomes the "his or her substitute" in 3.03 for the person he is entering for. He subbed for them. He's thus the "his or her substitute".

 

As such he is now the "his or her substitute" in rule 3.03 1 and 2 so the player he replaced cannot re-enter (even if he was a starter) until said "his or her substitute" has played 1-6.

 

Just like the RIM says (as quoted in post #29).



#38 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 29 April 2015 - 08:31 PM

Sorry to disagree Rich but 3.03 1 and 2 as written specifically applies to a Starter who is replaced by a Substitute and says that the Starter can not go back into the game until his/her sub meets 6/1.

Again, I don't disagree that what you are saying is the general "interpretation" and is consistent with the RIM (for those that have a copy) but it's not what is stated in the rule.

==========
I'll give you another example:
The 6/1 MPR says it is required for every player "present at the start of the game".
It does not say it applies to late arriving players.
So, is there anything "actually written in the rules" that says a late arriving player that a manager enters into the game has to meet MPR - Nope !
That said, if a manager puts a late arriving player into a game and he/she doesn't get 6/1 is it considered an MPR violation - Yes !

#39 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 29 April 2015 - 10:53 PM

"Present at the start" was a recent addition wasn't it?  I don't know if that's been thought out as much as it should. Probably should be a topic at the next congress. Sitting rather than playing isn't what LL is supposed to be about.

 

I disagree on your take on 3.03.

 

The rules are not always exactly what they mean. For example 2.00 Interference says that "on any interference the ball is dead" but we know that isn't true.

 

3.03 says player in the starting lineup "cannot reenter until" to distinguish that 

a non-starter cannot re-enter.

 

100 Begin

200 Count = 1

300 Write "A sub is a replacement for someone in the lineup."

400 Count = Count + 1

500 If count < 100 Go to 300

600 End

 

A starter replacing a starter is a sub.

 

The player he replaced cannot return until his sub completed 1-6 again.

 

It's there to prevent the quick movement of a good hitter to a more advantageous slot.

 

LL figured out the need for this decades ago.

 

The RIM agrees.

 

Time to move on.

 

Baltimore's going to be "Home" in Tampa. Why not just switch series dates?



#40 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 29 April 2015 - 11:50 PM

3.03 NOTE 1: A substitute may not be removed from the game prior to completion of his/her mandatory play requirements.
In the scenario I described, the Starter going back into the game as a Sub has already met MPR!

The "easy fix" might be to just revise NOTE 1 to say "A substitute may not be removed from the game prior to completing one at-bat and playing 6 consecutive defensive outs."

=========================================
As for the MPR Regulation, I sent in a proposed change to the MPR Regulation several years ago (I suggested "present at the start of the game" over what it used to say which was something like "every rostered player").
Obviously a rostered player who was not at the game can not meet MPR for that game!

I sent in that specific wording so that it "would not" apply to late arriving players!
My opinion was (and still is) that some playing time is better than none.
So to me, if the manager wants to put a late arriving player on defense or up to bat in the 6th that's better than leaving the kid on the bench.

Of course, if the manager put the kid in the game in the 6th and the game happened to go into extra innings then the kid could not be removed until meeting 6/1 per 3.03 Note 1.

But, if the game ended before the "late arriving player" met MPR it would NOT be an MPR violation.
Again, some playing time is better than none (in MY opinion).
So, don't punish a manager (with an MPR Violation) for putting the kid into the game and giving him/her some playing time rather than leaving the kid on the bench.

===========
How about that game in Baltimore today!
Imagine playing in an MLB game with no one in the stands !!!



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users