NFHS Substitution Question
 

Our HS season is just starting - 2007 NFHS rules.

Coach starts with 9 and Flex listed last and DP indicated. In third inning she substitutes for the Flex (#7 for #8) and tells me her DP will be pitching. I note the sub and asked her if she was sure she wanted to sub for the Flex. I also suggested she be sure the Flex is on the field playing defense. Next inning she wants the Flex to bat for the pitcher (#2) she removed (in her mind). She said I meant to substitute for #2. I explained she has already made a substitution for the Flex and the only way she can bat is if she enters the game for the DP. She says, "the DP is pitching, I took # 2 out." I told her she did not take #2 out, she simply had the Flex and DP playing defense at same time and that she could have any 9 of the 10 playing defense as long as the Flex is one of them. There was no argument.

Did I get this right according to NFHS? Would there be any difference in ASA?

Yes, and no.

Despite the substitution that was made, there would be no strict requirement for the FLEX to play defense as long as the umpire was informed of this. The team would simply have 9 players - the 9 that take the field.

The "new" FLEX player would be out of the game for the time being; but could be reentered at any time.

It sounds like you understand the DP/FLEX thing pretty well - probably better than most coaches and umpires.

But the mere fact that you had to ask a question about, what SHOULD be, a simple substitution rule, tells you all you need to know about the DP/FLEX rule. It's too complicated for most people.

Wouldn't it be nicer if a team could simply allow two players to occupy the same spot in a 9-man lineup? Their names would appear side-by-side. Either one could bat in that spot (and that spot only), and either one (or both) could take the field. You could call them FLEX1 and FLEX2, for all it matters. It would be virtually impossible to make a mistake, even if you tried.

Simple. Easily understood. Easily implemented. No substitutions. Everybody is happy. And it essentially accomplishes the same thing as the current DP/FLEX rule, without the needless complications.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I don't find the DP/FLEX rule to be particularly complicated. True, it is more complicated than an EP rule, but, then it is also more complicated than just allowing the team to bat the roster with unlimited subs on defense. Why not just do that?

I admit - again - it took me a full season to really get a handle around the DP/Flex (then DEFO) rule. I think this was back in 86/87 - so the wording of the rule was not as clear as it is now and many folks did not have a great understanding (I suspect because they too were making it way to complex). The reason it took me so long was that I was making it too complicated. When I slowed down, took one thing at a time, and learned better lineup card management - the DP/Flex became very easy.

Fastpitch - like Tom said - you got it right for Fed and ASA is identical.

Because that is not remotely in the spirit of what the ASA intended with the DP/FLEX rule.

Besides, batting the roster is inherently unfair since one team may have 15 players whereas the other may only have 10. The team with only 10 can have their best hitters bat more frequently.

Fundamentally, the way it is now, the DP and FLEX are two halves that make a whole. The DP can still play defense and the FLEX can still bat. Instead of having all these hard-to-remember stipulations, why not truly make them two players who occupy the same spot in the lineup?

The way it is now ...

1) The DP can play defense, and it doesn't count as a substitution provided the FLEX is also playing defense.

2) Yet, the DP can play defense without the FLEX still out there provided the umpire is informed. The FLEX would be out of the game.

3) The DP can stay on the bench while still participating on offense.

Everything above would still be true with my proposal, except there would be no substitution involved. One, or both, could play defense at any time. Simple. You don't even have to tell the umpire. They're both on the lineup card.

The way it is now ...

4) The FLEX can bat, but she has to bat in the DP's spot. When that happens the FLEX no longer occupies the obscure "10th spot" in the lineup. The team goes from 10 to 9 players at this point. This is a substitution. The DP can return (this is a reentry), but she has to return to the same spot and then the FLEX returns to the Netherworld of the "10th spot". Back to 10 players.

With my proposal, either of the two players can bat in that spot in the lineup. No substitution is required since, on the lineup card, they both occupy that spot.

Isn't that essentially the way it is now - they both have to occupy the same spot in the lineup? The only difference is that there is no substitution required.

None of this 10 to 9, then 9 to 10, move from the 10th spot to the 3rd spot then back to the 10th spot. Inform the umpire about the substitution and then the retry... etc.

My proposed method is both logical, in the spirit of the DP/FLEX rule as currently written, and intuitive.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

You've essentially proposed the DP/FLEX become a half-EP, that's all. But, have fun with your proposal - now all you need is someone to sponsor it at the next NFHS rules committee meeting.

Half-EP? I like that!

Yes, that seems to be a pretty good description. But, unlike an EP, the "extra player" doesn't require an extra spot in the batting lineup.

I'm not holding my breath for anybody to embrace this rule. Rulesmakers are very protective over their rules. They don't embrace the notion that there is a better (and more understandable) way to do what they've originally created.

The DP/FLEX rule, as it stands, requires a lot of thinking ... a lot of bookkeeping on everybody's part ... substitutions become brainteasers, and few teams take full use of it mostly because they are uncomfortable with it. And that's because they don't fully understand it.

I would say most teams that use it - use it as nothing more than a DH.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Yeah, I'm looking for the NFHS to dummy down a universally accepted (ASA, NCAA, and ISF) rule, using the rationale that their professional educators are too stupid to fully understand it as it currently exists.

I would hardly say "universally accepted" - more like "universally misunderstood."

Everybody can hum a few bars of the DP/FLEX rule, but few can sing the whole chorus. That includes coaches and umpires!


I know who many of these umpires are - and they are not "professional educators."

They're janitors, police officers, real estate salesmen, restaurant workers, plumbers, etc ...

They have lives and most do not frequent this forum or spend any appreciable amount of time with the rules, any more than is necessary to survive on the field.

And the reason they survive with regards to this rule is because the coaches share their ignorance.

You can't convince me otherwise. I have made a mission, of sorts, on this topic. I almost never pass up an opportunity to talk with an umpire and I purposely try to steer the discussion toward this rule in order to "test" their knowledge. I do it politely, often faking like I have some confusion about the rule and allowing them to "straighten me out."

They usually preface their explanation by saying, "It's not too difficult, all you have to remember is ..." and then they go on to reveal a significant misunderstanding about the rule.

Their knowledge is abysmal!

That's the only thing "universal" about the rule that I can tell.

This forum, by the way, is hardly representative of the general umpire population. So it is not a compelling argument for the handful of you (who are likely top-notch umpires) to "wow" me with your DP/FLEX knowledge. I already know that you are non-representative.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David,

If you let me have two players in same spot in batting order with no substitution penalty, here is what I am going to do:

R1 on 3rd, my double batter spot is up in the batting order. One is fast and a good bunter with no power, the other is slow with power. I opt for the bunter. Two strikes later she couldn't put the bunt down.

"Blue, may I have time?"

I bring in the power bat looking for a sac fly. She singles, and guess who's coming in to run?

You had better at least force me to use a sub if I am running them in and out, just like I have to do with the current dp/flex rule.


Come to think of it, under current rules, would I be allowed to sub in a new batter for a batter that started but did not complete her turn at bat and there was no injury? Not sure that I would ever do that to a player but its good to know if the option was there.

Even the DP/FLEX rule (as "simple" as it is) requires an entire page under Rule 4 Section 3 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I along with one of the longer POE's (#16) which has A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L.

I have just presented the foundation of my proposal. It would obviously need some polishing. But nothing close to the twists and turns of the DP/FLEX rule.

It wouldn't be too complex or incomprehensible to simply say, "The offense must decide which of the two FLEX players is to bat when their spot in the order comes up. Once that decision is made, the other FLEX cannot assume batting or running duties until the next at-bat comes up. No announcement needs to be made as to which of the two players is batting since no substitution is being made."

They're both clearly listed, side-by-side, on the lineup card. No confusion is possible. Either Katie (#24) or Suzy (#15) is going to bat in that spot. If the coach chooses Suzy, then Suzy has to complete her at-bat and run for herself. Of course, the coach can put a substitute in for Suzy, but that would just be a normal substitution as it currently reads in the rulebook. The substitute would simply become the new FLEX player. He just can't use Katie once the decision is made to use Suzy. If they have a big inning, and that spot comes up again, the coach can switch to Katie.

A simple modification like that would prevent the silliness you pointed out and it is extremely easy to understand.

How 'bout *this* with the current DP/FLEX rule?

The DP bats and gets on base. The coach calls time and wants the FLEX to run for the DP. Legal! Since the FLEX player is the pitcher, the coach then wants a courtesy runner for his pitcher. Legal? Yes!

Not only is that complicated - it's every bit as silly as the scenario you described for my proposal. I can fix it with my proposal with one, easily understandable, tweak: Once you decide who is going to bat in that spot (FLEX1 or FLEX2), you must stay with that player until the next time that spot comes up in the batting order.

You can even make an additional, common sense, and easily understood addendum like: "If a FLEX player gets injured and is removed from the game while either at-bat, or, while on base, a substitute is required. If no substitute player is available, the other FLEX player can take her place and then becomes the only occupier of that spot in the order for the remainder of the game."

OK, so now my proposal as addendum A and B, both of which or intuitive and readily understood without a lot of head scratching.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

"Come to think of it, under current rules, would I be allowed to sub in a new batter for a batter that started but did not complete her turn at bat and there was no injury? Not sure that I would ever do that to a player but its good to know if the option was there."

Sure, you can pretty much put a sub in whenever you want.

David,
Now, this becomes kind of a different type of discussion. I agree completely that this group does not represent many of the sports officials of any contest. You've got a small percentage who put in a lot of effort to be on top of rules, interps, mechanics, and sharing those with others. Discussions amongst this group are iron sharpening iron.
On the other extreme, you've got an equally small group of officials who desire only to be paid, do as little as they can, and then leave. This type of official exists in all sports too. And we get tired of cleaning up after them - but bodies are needed so they keep getting games.
In the middle, you've probably got the bulk of your officials - for one reason or another. I suspect that most of the folks on this board have the desire to move a few from this middle group into the first group.
Society, in general, has dumbed down standards for as long as I can recall. I think that's a bad thing - lowering standards due to the bottom group. But that's what you're suggesting with the DP/Flex.

There are certain aspects of the game that are inherently challenging, like various interference infractions and obstruction. Those rules have to be there or there would be anarchy. Umpires just have to suck it up and learn those rules - even if they're a bit difficult.

But substitution rules needn't be difficult or confusing; certainly not as confusing as the DP/FLEX rule. There is no reason to keep hammering on that square peg and try to drive it into a round hole.

Why not drive the square peg into the square hole?

That's all I'm suggesting.

Actually, if you think about it, my proposal isn't too far off from the current DP/FLEX rule. It keeps all the good parts and removes all the hard parts.

I realize I'm just dreaming. They'll never change it and I'm not holding my breath.

I understand the rule. You understand the rule. And everybody in this forum probably understands the rule much better than the average umpire. To ignore that others labor with it, however, is naive. They do!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David, good luck with your crusade, although I suspect you'd have a greater impact on the game by teaching umpires the rule.

Yeah, you're probably right.

As far as explaining/teaching it ... been there done that.

The problem is that nobody really feels the need to understand this rule very in depth, mostly because their experience tells them that they know "enough" of the rule to be functional. And they're right!

But the day they run up against a creative coach, who understands the rule very well, they will have difficulties.

But even then ... probably not. Because it's unlikely the other team will have a clear understanding of what is legal or not.

There'll be some questions asked. The lineup cards will come out. Then there'll be a collective shrug of the shoulders and the game will continue, whether it was done properly or not.

I have to confess, when I coached, we would frequently have the DP on the field while the DEFO (old terminology) was on the bench. I knew it was illegal but nobody noticed, nobody cared, and we were getting everybody in without having to worry about substitutions. Of course, this only works with low-profile players, usually an outfielder.

Nobody hardly takes the time to notice that there is a different left fielder out there this inning compared to last inning. And even if they did, they'd probably dismiss it as the usual DP defensive shuffling that can occur - not realizing that the FLEX is on the bench, illegally, because no substitution was announced.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Resurrecting an old thread.

And look what happened! The NCAA is implementing an experimental rule that is exactly as I proposed it back in 2006 when I wrote a 3-part article on officiating.com as a superior alternative to the highly convoluted DP/FLEX rule.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/fi...e-%20Links.pdf

Much simpler! Far superior! Two players share the same spot in the line-up. Either one can bat in that spot. Either one can play the field. Either one can run for the other. And, when they do this "switching", it is never a substitution. The two players are inextricably linked together. They are one-in-the-same player.

It accomplishes everything the DP/FLEX rule did, but without all the complications of going back and forth between 9 and 10 players and tracking how many times somebody has reentered.

NOT legal !!

Ding Ding, - the winner !!!! :cool:

With DP/FLEX, both can play defense at the same time, hence FLEXible.