The Official Forum
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   2016 Fed changes (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/100642-2016-fed-changes.html)

Little Jimmy Thu Jan 07, 2016 08:10pm
2016 Fed changes
 
Awhile back there was a little talk here about Feds new definition of a projected sub and what that might really mean for on the field subbing. Anyone hear any clarification from the Feds about how they want this handled in game? We're a month away from any local meeting. Also the points of emphasis this year talks strike zone, pitching and (as always) DP/Flex. Same question: anyone know if that means a more open, consistent zone? And what are they wanting to see pitching wise? Clear hands apart? Clear pause?

IRISHMAFIA Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:41pm
IMO, all this "projected sub" stuff with the Fed is more people not understanding, including the Fed coaches and committee, exactly what it is.

Of course, that doesn't mean it will stop them from wasting their, and the umpire's, time pushing something that doesn't need anything more than a viable definition and direction.

For the record, IMO the definition of a projected substitution in 48 years of umpiring as a change designated by the coach to take place at a time other than immediately.

And before someone brings up a defensive change, there is NO SUCH THING as a defensive substitution. Yes, the substitution may involve defensive positioning, but the change is ALWAYS to the line-up regardless of the defense positions involved.

CecilOne Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 975723)
IMO, all this "projected sub" stuff with the Fed is more people not understanding, including the Fed coaches and committee, exactly what it is.

Of course, that doesn't mean it will stop them from wasting their, and the umpire's, time pushing something that doesn't need anything more than a viable definition and direction.

For the record, IMO the definition of a projected substitution in 48 years of umpiring as a change designated by the coach to take place at a time other than immediately.

And before someone brings up a defensive change, there is NO SUCH THING as a defensive substitution. Yes, the substitution may involve defensive positioning, but the change is ALWAYS to the line-up regardless of the defense positions involved.
An actual change to the lineup is a current change, not projected, even if the replacement is not the immediate next batter; whether the team is offense or defense at the time.

I would have to go back to seem, but I remember the published definition as
being somewhat myopic and causing more problem than it saved. :rolleyes:

hartj17 Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:17am
Projected Sub: We discussed this the other night in our local meeting. Coaches do it all the time, "Hey Blue, I'm subbing in Player X for Player Y, but she will reenter the next inning"

RKBUmp Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:50am
Now Im confused. The last I saw from NFHS they had adopted the ruling from NCAA as to a coach cannot make a substitute on offense until that player is actually coming to bat. But, I just pulled up the NFHS rule changes and it appears they have backed off from that statement and have now gone to this statement.

Quote:
A projected substitute is the act of entering a substitute without first removing a player from that position in the lineup. This definition has been added because there are situations where coaches attempt to make a substitution for the upcoming half inning on defense while the player being replaced is still on offense. This is illegal. The coach must first remove the player(s) from the lineup and then enter the substitute(s) name(s) and number(s).
Has NFHS dropped the requirement that offensive substitutions cannot be made until the player is actually coming to bat?

RKBUmp Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:59am
Answered my own question. Found another website with further clarification.

Quote:
Note: Multiple substitutions on offense is not considered projected substitutes as long as the coach removes the person(s) being substituted for and then enters the names and numbers of those players entering the lineup. (3-3-2 and 3-3-3).

CecilOne Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 975723)
And before someone brings up a defensive change, there is NO SUCH THING as a defensive substitution. Yes, the substitution may involve defensive positioning, but the change is ALWAYS to the line-up regardless of the defense positions involved.
Said another way, lineup changes are lineup changes; there is only one piece of paper; not separate ones for offense or defense.
The recent ASA pool play complication and DP/FLEX are another matter, should be ignored in getting this concept understood.

CecilOne Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:14pm
Quote:
Note: Multiple substitutions on offense is not considered projected substitutes as long as the coach removes the person(s) being substituted for and then enters the names and numbers of those players entering the lineup. (3-3-2 and 3-3-3).

How does a substitute enter without the replaced player being removed (assuming legality ;))??

RKBUmp Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:28pm
Guess they had to come up with something after the first ruling they issued.

Must have been a pretty fast backtrack because they issued the initial definition in June or July of 2015 and the change back came out in August of 2015.

IRISHMAFIA Fri Jan 08, 2016 04:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartj17 (Post 975776)
Projected Sub: We discussed this the other night in our local meeting. Coaches do it all the time, "Hey Blue, I'm subbing in Player X for Player Y, but she will reenter the next inning"
And the response should have been, "No sir/ma'am. Please provide that change when it is to occur".


Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 975723)
as a change designated by the coach to take place at a time other than immediately.

With all the responses, I'll stick with my very simple, concise and accurate definition of projected substitution.

There was a discussion a little while ago about confusion among the rules and IMO it is because people try to get too specific and does more to convolute the situation with the mutltude of "...but what if..." scenarios. Yes, the rule do need to be all inclusive, but the simpler the wording, the batter.

Here is how simple it is for all substitutions: The coach gives you a change, it is effective immediately. No other options. If the coach attempts to offer a projected substitution (as defined above), the umpire should notify the coach that this substitution is not being accepted and to resubmit at the appropriate time.

CecilOne Fri Jan 08, 2016 06:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 975841)
And the response should have been, "No sir/ma'am. Please provide that change when it is to occur".





With all the responses, I'll stick with my very simple, concise and accurate definition of projected substitution.

There was a discussion a little while ago about confusion among the rules and IMO it is because people try to get too specific and does more to convolute the situation with the mutltude of "...but what if..." scenarios. Yes, the rule do need to be all inclusive, but the simpler the wording, the batter.

Here is how simple it is for all substitutions: The coach gives you a change, it is effective immediately. No other options. If the coach attempts to offer a projected substitution (as defined above), the umpire should notify the coach that this substitution is not being accepted and to resubmit at the appropriate time.
Yep!

BretMan Fri Jan 08, 2016 07:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKBUmp (Post 975784)
Now Im confused...
You and me both, brother!

I've never seen the "revised" interpretation- and I tend to keep up on that stuff. When I first saw this question I went to the NFHS Arbiter page to look at the 2016 rule changes. They still have the "old" interpretation there (one offensive change at a time). Where did you find the new one?

RKBUmp Fri Jan 08, 2016 07:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan (Post 975858)
You and me both, brother!

I've never seen the "revised" interpretation- and I tend to keep up on that stuff. When I first saw this question I went to the NFHS Arbiter page to look at the 2016 rule changes. They still have the "old" interpretation there (one offensive change at a time). Where did you find the new one?

Here is a link to the website I found it on. Its dated August 10, 2015

https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource...rules-2015-16/

BretMan Fri Jan 08, 2016 07:44pm
Here's what they have on the Arbiter page:

https://nfhs-softball.arbitersports....he%20Rules.pdf

Always nice to have conflicting info on two "official" sites! :eek:

RKBUmp Fri Jan 08, 2016 08:13pm
Doesnt have a date, but that is the same one I saw back in June or July.

Guess maybe someone needs to decide which one they are going with.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26pm.
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1