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?

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:

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"

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.

Has NFHS dropped the requirement that offensive substitutions cannot be made until the player is actually coming to bat?

Answered my own question. Found another website with further clarification.

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.

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 ;))??

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.

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!

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/

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:

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.

I sent an email to their "contact us" department with a link to both websites asking which one is the actual ruling. Will have to see if they actually respond, big note at bottom of page saying all rules interpretations must go to state association. But, this really isn't a rule interpretation, it is conflicting statements on their own websites.

Any thoughts on the point of emphasis on pitching? The new rule book says in part the committee "encourages umpires to call the strike zone according to the rule". Meaning the full zone, armpit to top of knees?

I know that this is what our Instructional chair will teach but in So Cal the top teams will be pissed if we call that zone.

Considering the rule is any part of the ball passing through the zone is a strike, and the armpit is the top of the strike zone that would make a ball up around the chin a strike. You call strikes up that high and more than a few coaches are going to be headed to the parking lot .

I don't have any problem using the full ball at or below armpit as a strike. I can quote the rule book to any coach and feel like I did the right thing. I'll take that over the "nothing over the belt" approach that some of the locals use.

Isn't the general teaching the whole ball based on zone height (arm pit or knee), any part on zone width?
i.e., "tight on height, wide on side"

Also, when did coaches' temperament become part of the rules? :rolleyes:

This has nothing to do with general "teachings" of the strike zone. For that matter I have heard I dont know how many different versions of what strike zone should be called. It seems every instructor has their own version, shorten the top and extend the outside corner, call the river both sides, call the college strike zone, call the letters etc etc etc.

The point of emphasis put out by the NFHS says to call the strike zone by the book. The book says the zone is the the armpits to the knees and any part of the ball passing through this zone is a strike. So, take the armpit, measure up 3.8" and you have the top of the ball up near the chin. That is the "rule" strike zone.

And no, I generally dont care what coaches think. But, you start calling strikes up around the chin that have never historically been a strike and you are going to have coaches going to the parking lot.

Of course, many batters will swing at that pitch, because they see it best.

Can you imagine how much more dominant pitchers could become if we rung up armpit high strikes? I know it is the rule and always has been BUT it's always been an unwritten that it is not called up there. Again, I don't care where your personal belief is regarding the top but I promise you, mine ain't a while ball at the armpit. Neither is any umps in college or for that matter, in the major leagues. I just can't imagine the NFHS will ever make this a big deal i.e. The four automatics in basketball etc. or at least I hope they don't. I just don't feel that would be a very fun transition, for anyone


I wish I had a cool signature

I believe they have updated the conflicting information about projected subs.

https://nfhs-softball.arbitersports....20Rules(1).pdf

They never responded to me directly but apparently they got my or someone else's email who may have contacted them. Would be interesting to hear the story behind their first release and then the major backtrack a month later.

But, now the problem is they issued that first release and if you Google nfhs projected substitution there are literally dozens of web pages of various high school associations and news articles that are still showing the first release. The first release they seemed to make a lot of effort to get it out and in the press and then never seemed to say a word about the second release.

I was sent this today from NFHS contact
 

https://nfhs-softball.arbitersports....20Rules(1).pdf

Was told this was supposed to be the official statement from rules interpreter? Hope this helps

Up until yesterday that link still had the original press release they issued in June that said you could not accept offensive subs until they were actually coming up to bat.

Today I received the 2016 NFHS Preseason Guide. It has interpretations that match up with the "revised" ruling.

In other words...the definition of a projected sub is now "officially" what most of the umpires here have said it always was!

Still an absurdly written rule change. These people ain't too smart :)

After they issued their first idiotic ruling on projected subs, I guess the only way to fix it was to come up with some other strangely worded rule.

Yeah, I guess something along the lines of, "All substitutions are effective immediately upon acceptence by the umpire" would be too difficult to understand. :cool:

Except they couldn't word it that way after they changed their substitution rule to say the sub was not officially in the game until the ball was declared live by the plate umpire a few years back.

I don't believe that is accurate, although it does appear to be a common misconception.

Not looking in a book, but my memory says that UNREPORTED subs are not in the game until the ball is live and they are playing in that position. The purpose was to stop the absurd rulings that if someone not in the game or playing a different position stopped somewhere on the field (let's say the shortstop threw a warmup pitch, or a courtesy runner stopped to warm up the pitcher) that it was a substitution.

All REPORTED substitutions are in the game when the substitution is accepted by the umpire (in NCAA, and in common practice elsewhere, actually when the sub is reported to all affected parties).

Nfhs 3-3 art 3 e. And, in each of the above situations, when the ball is declared live by the plate umpire.

My recollection is there is also a test question on it with regard to a coach making a sub who has been announced to the opposing coach, but changes their mind prior to the umpire putting the ball back into play. If the ball has not been put back into play the sub has not officially entered the game.

You are skipping the preface to all those sub-articles, which states "If there is no announcement of substitutions, a substitute has entered the game when ......"

This (when the ball is declared live) relates to unreported/unannounced substitutions. Once reported and announced, this clause is not in effect (whether listed on a test or not).

This is the NFHS test question from the 2013 test.

An offensive substitute has officially entered the game when the ball is live and she replaces a runner on base or takes her place in the batter's box.

The answer was true, and notice the statement "when the ball is live". NFHS changed the substitution reporting rule a few years ago. The sub is not officially in the game until reported and the ball is made live.

And is e not a sub heading of Art 3? Wouldnt that make article 3 one of the above situations of e?

I will not do a continued back and forth; this will be my last post on this topic.

1) The question posed is standard poor NFHS test question example. It doesn't state if the substitute was announced or not, and once the sub is in the game with a live ball, it doesn't matter. It also an affirmative and one-directional statement; it doesn't ask about the alternative (if announced, but ball not yet alive).

2) Your subjective reading as subheading isn't the linear rationale of how one reads a rule book.

The items a-e apply If there is no announcement of substitutions. If there is an announcement, STOP READING, what follows until you see Art. 4 does not apply.

3. YES, they changed the substitution rule; in 2013. The change clarified the obligation to announce subs to the opposing head coach, not simply an "official" scorekeeper. There was no other change with respect to when a substitution became official.

What you are saying is a common misconception; you may have even been instructed that by someone in authority. It simply is NOT the NFHS rule, however.