View Single Post
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 21, 2015, 07:02am
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
I think we all understand your POV on this. However, NFHS has been pretty clear that your interpretation is not THEIR interpretation. Their rule "change" (I would say it's a clarification) is that your statement does not meet the way they want it done.
My point of view? How about the view of the way it has been for decades by a majority of rule sets?



Quote:
[b]Rule 2-57-4 has been added because there are situations where coaches attempt to make multiple substitutions on offense that may not happen immediately. This is an inappropriate practice on offense because players can only be substituted prior to their immediate scheduled at-bat. Therefore, coaches may only substitute for the immediate player at bat.


The practice of "projected" subs includes changes the coach d0es not want to occur until some point in the future. As has been for decades, any change offered occurs immediately. It is a change involving a player in the line-up, not positions in the field or at bat.

IMO, NFHS is over-reaching in an effort to make their point and has come up with wording that is of no benefit to the teams, umpires or the game.

What happens if you have a player ejected while on offense? Are you not going to immediately ask for a substitute? If there are no substitutes, will you allow a team to continue shorthanded when it is not allowed simply because you are told not to accept an offensive substitute until that player is due to bat?

Is that a TWP scenario? Could be, maybe not.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote