NCAA rules clinic
 

Discussed here ad nauseum...

My first year in this NCAA group, no clout to argue with the rules interpreter...

Due to the change in the wording around "Projected Substitution", we are being told, in no uncertain terms, if the coach comes out in the beginning of the 1st inning, and says "in the 5th inning, I want bench sitter Sally to come in to hit in the #3 spot", we are to say, "very good coach" and make a notation on our lineup sheet to remind myself of this change.

or, coach says, "Blue, after 1,2, and 3 bat, and we go back in the field, I substituting 12, 13, and 14 for them on defense", I am supposed to enter the changes and make a note.

I really, really want to work for these guys. But if this occurs on my field, and I don't take the changes (of course I wouldn't take the changes), and the coach protests, because, of course, "substituted players are not required to immediately enter the game", and we get my boss on the phone, he's not gonna back up my call!

What words am I supposed to use to these good people to explain the situation?

I havent seen the wording of the rule, but that is not my understanding of the change at all. It is simply to allow an offensive coach to change multiple batters at one time in that half inning. Used to be the coach had to wait until that position was actually coming to bat to make the change. The coach still cannot say #4 is going to bat for #10 and then #4 will reenter on defense the next inning.

Will have search for the wording of the new rule.

2018 and 2019 Major Rules Changes for Softball

Copy in red indicates what has been deleted from the rules

8.5.1.1 Any player may be substituted for at any time when the ball is dead as long as she immediately participates in the game.
8.5.1.3 A coach of the team making the substitution shall immediately notify the plate umpire at the time a substitute enters the game.
A coach may make substitutes by notifying the plate umpire of the forthcoming changes.
Substitutes are not required to enter the game at the time the substitution is reported to the plate umpire. Projected substitutions and re-entries are not allowed.

Rationale: Improves the flow of the game by allowing a coach to make projected substitutions. Substitutes will now be reported to the umpire without being required to immediately participate in the game, e.g., allowing a coach to report more than one change in the batting order at the beginning of the inning or re-entering the DP before her next at bat. Projected re-entries, i.e., re-entries reported while the substitute is participating (running, batting, playing defense), will continue not to be allowed.

So, the "Substitutes are not required..." statement is being used to rationalize their inaccurate interpretation that a sub may be made for any player at any time in the future (and has to be accepted by the umpire when stated to him).

I appreciate the other sanctions even more. :eek:

And if they forget, does that make the starter an unreported re-entry? ;) :( :p :eek:

While we can all understand the intent/spirit of this rule change, it would have been a lot more clear (on paper) if they had not removed 8.5.1.3.

Substitutes can (and should, at any level, IMO) be able to be made at any time...but they are immediate whether on offense or defense. Just because the offensive team does not all participate at the same time is no reason to limit lineup changes. Want to sub for batter #5 in the top of the 1st? OK, but now that player is in, whether she bats or not in that inning.

Here's my "Larry the Cable Guy" interpretation: "Them subs is in the game as soon as Coach tells ya they are. Till then, they ain't in the game. And, ya cain't put players in the game for 'gonnabe's'...they either is or they ain't in the game."

"Coach, that's a projected substitution and I can't record it. Let me know when those players enter the batting lineup. I can take them at that time."

Those are the words I'd use. They don't properly reflect the rule, and that's because I'd be talking to a coach, so using actual rule-language is....shall we say "tough" to use at all times. If questioned, I could quote chapter and verse, but that's usually not necessary on First Contact with a coach. Sometimes we have to paraphrase (to start with).

I know you all think I'm a little soft on my opinions about rule changes, :) but this one is a load of shit. It improves absolutely nothing. If anything, it may add confusion to the game. IMO, it is a weak change with no consideration given to order of the game, rules and those tasked to officiate it.

I would love to know what influenced such a change.

Coach reports Flex batting for DP (who is only playing offense). At the end of the half-inning, the coach wants to reenter the DP. That was a projected substitution under the old rule. (Still is in the sense that it may be several innings before the DP's spot comes to bat again.) The coach was to be told to reenter the DP when the DP was due to bat. Coaches being coaches, they would forget and potentially be hit with an unreported substitute violation.

That and if substitutes on offense are taken one at a time, it slows the game down.

Mike, even having met you for a whopping 5 minutes in person, I love your unfiltered opinions, and this is a good one (opinion). This "weak change" fixes the old rule of no "projected subs" where a 'projected' sub is immediate. As I understand it, subs are "effective" as soon as reported. No sooner, no later. As far as I am concerned, this is a positive rule change.

I reserve the right to edit this post if I am wrong. :}

It seems poorly written (as evidenced by the OP) but the rule just brings NCAA in line with every other softball (and baseball) code, no?

The people with whom I'm debating are not even concerning themselves with the re-entry yet... just the original substitution, which they think can be made 3,4,5 batting cycles into the future...

Strangely enough, I believe 1 small change (or even an addition) in the rationale explanation would clarify things immensely:

Projected substitutions, i.e., substitutions reported if the player to be substituted for continues to participate after the change is reported (running, batting, playing defense), will continue not to be allowed.

I disagree that it would be a projected substitute. I've been dealing with attempted projected substitutes for a quarter of a entry and IMO that is a misinterpretation. While it may not be a smart move by the coach, there is no requirement for a player being entered in the batting order to make an immediate appearance as a batter. Then again, the BS I've seen thrown around NFHS recently, I have often wondered how many actually know what a projected sub is.

No. Well, not that way it is coming across.

It isn't hard. For that matter, it has been harder trying to create scenarios that try to redefine a projected sub in order to fix something that wasn't broken

Criminetly! This is not hard.

Can the change be entered on the umpire's lineup card when the coach announces the change?
Yes... not a projected sub.
No... a projected sub.

Is this the official interpretation of the NCAA? BFOM; I don't officiate NCAA.

Have the rules writers and interpreters and clinicians screwed it up?
Yes.

I don't disagree at all [with you]. One can only work with the interpretations handed down.

Last year's NCAA ruleset/interpretations did require this. For example, if the 4-5-6 batters were due up in the inning, Coach could not sub for B5 until her turn to bat. It was not intuitive, slowed the game, and complicated things with respect to DP/Flex. IMO, they fixed it, which is why I said earlier that I think this is a positive rule change.

However, Teebob, if the Defense coach wanted to pull his shortstop when she tanked a play, even if she's due to bat 5th in the upcoming at-bat, we still accepted that change. Go figure.

I found this post confusing. I'm not sure in what way it's a however. Let me restate my understanding.

Play: F6 commits a throwing error which results in a run scoring. The third out is recorded later in the same play.
NCAA last year: F6 cannot be replaced until she is due to bat.
NCAA this year and every other 4 base code: F6 can be replaced now even though she won't be up to bat until 5th in the inning.

Is that how we all understand it?

IMO, this is a result of a complete misunderstanding of alleged softball people of the definition of a projected substitute.

It is easier than understanding the effect of an infield fly. I believe there is too much emphasis placed on a player's defensive position or batting order slot. Making a change is not that difficult and when you make it, the change is effective immediately. Not next inning, not whenever the coaches ask it to be or any other time.

Again, it is not hard to understand. It doesn't delay the game or affect the flow. At least it hasn't for over 80 years of softball.

Going in any other direction can only set up the umpire and coach for possible failure at some point in the game.

I don't do NCAA, so haven't followed this thread that closely. But the comment about "F6 cannot be replaced until she is due to bat" simply makes no sense at all. That eliminates ANY defensive substitutions.

What would happen if a defensive player were injured? Or a coach wanted to make a multiple position swap by moving the current pitcher to another defensive position, removing the player at that position, and entering a new pitcher?

I don't mean to further confuse the issue, but apparently this thread doesn't need my help to do that. :rolleyes:

Old Rule:
8.5.1.1 Any player may be substituted for at any time when the ball is dead as long as she immediately participates in the game.

If F6 does not come to bat in the next half-inning, the substitution can take place when her team takes the field on defense.

That didn't help.

A defensive substitute is immediately participating in the game. The change can come in the middle of a half inning.

Not sure what you mean by "if F6 does not come to bat ..." If F6 is scheduled to bat 7th next half-inning, we don't know if she will come to bat in the next half-inning or not.

Making a change is not that difficult and when you make it, the change is effective immediately.

Making a change is not that difficult and when you make it, the change is effective immediately.

Making a change is not that difficult and when you make it, the change is effective immediately.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

the comment about "immediately participating in the game" is what I think most complicates what is an incredibly simple rule.

A player is "participating in a the game" by just sitting on the bench, waiting for her at-bat, which could be as many as 8 batters away.

For a DP, she is "participating in the game" while she sits on the bench as her team is getting beat up on defense for a 1/2 hour, and her at-bat is up to 8 batters away.

If she's in the batting lineup, she's "participating in the game". Period.

Notice in my play, the third out was recorded on the play. As such, in the old NCAA rule, F6 could not be removed until due up to bat or when she was returning to defense. In other words, the NCAA messed up the concept of a substitution by claiming that players waiting to bat but not actually at bat were not participating in the game. This year they fixed it and it works like every other code. But they did it in a way that is still leaving some people messed up on the subject.
(Or my understanding of what's up is wrong.)

If a player is in the batting order, the player is a game participant

Exactly!

I agree. What I can't tell is if you're trying to disagree with something I said or just make a point about how utterly ridiculous the previous NCAA interpretation was.

I'm simply stating I agree with Mike's statement that I quoted.

What is ridiculous, IMO, is how much this notion of "projected substitutions" and "participating in the game" is over-thought to the point that the rules are written in such a confusing and convoluted manner that it leads to all kinds of spurious interpretations by clinicians and application by umpires.

The game naturally has players who are legally participating in the game who are sitting on the bench. Making some kind of convoluted rule to special case a sub/projected sub depending on whether the team is on offense or defense (as NCAA did previously) reveals a lack of understanding of the game itself, IMO.

When the sub is announced to the plate umpire, the plate umpire notes the change on his lineup card, and the change takes effect immediately, with all that implies for future substitutions, re-entries (for those rules that allow re-entry), etc.

What the actual player does at that point depends on whether the team is on offense or defense, and if on offense, where that player is in the batting order relative to who is at bat, etc. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with a "projected sub" or whether the sub is now "participating in the game"... the sub was participating in the game the moment the umpire changed his lineup card.

If the umpire cannot make the change to his lineup at that point because the player currently in the lineup is going to stay there until something else happens in the future, THAT is a projected sub, and that substitution cannot be made until later.

To put it in perspective, IMO the most common attempt at a projected substitute, at least in SP, would be a change like, "Jim is batting for Bob. Bob will reenter". The appropriate response by the umpire should be, "Jim for Bob. Coach, give me the reentry when you would like it to occur."

And before someone goes, "but that is coaching", :eek: it is not. It is the umpire telling the coach that s/he is not accepting the inappropriate change with cause.

When I first read the OP, I thought NCAA was making projected subs allowed.
Now, it seems they were just reinforcing the prohibition.
Even though I don't care about NCAA anymore, I wonder if those who do might be confused by this.

.................................................. .................................
Some very good points were made in this topic, especially the later ones by IM & D. As long as USA and NFHS keep the current rule, which are easy to handle, fine with me.

The confusion arose by what constituted a "projected sub." Prior to 2018 (and 2017 for NFHS), the substitution rules basically stated when the sub was in the game. On defense, this is easy, when they take their position. Offense is different, because a coach could tell you that during the inning exchange, that the 'second batter will be #X'" Now, the rules in all three codes did not prohibit it, it was the interpretation that it was not allowed, especially from the (highly respected) former NCAA SRE.

Flash back to 2016, I'm sitting in Indy for the NCAA clinic, the new SRE re-enforcing the interpretation. Question arises about reentering the DP after she has been removed while on bases (in that she is not unreported for her next return at bat). New SRE is taken aback, works into a corner, first replying "why would a coach want to do that?" (crowd audibly gasps) and then says: "well, that would be ok, because they are going back to the original line up." (crowd does more than gasps). We walk away with 1) only allowing offense sub either at bat or on bases and 2) the DP can reenter without batting.

The 2016 NFHS change and 2018-2019 NCAA change are (IMO) only clarifications against the interpretation. Now you can enter players on offense without the batter in the batter's box or on bases (or reenter the DP). Period. Only scope of the rule change.

Well, I didn't mention USA softall in the above. Does USA softball have an official interpretation?

I don't know about written or published without looking, just that we apply the logic expressed by Irish and Dakota above; and your comment
"you can enter players on offense without the batter in the batter's box or on bases (or reenter the DP). Period."
pretend :thumps up icon:

Basically the lineup is just a document of who is in or not; regardless of what they are doing at the time. :cool:

Note: USA pool play lineups do not change that.