NCAA DP/Flex scenario

[Little Jimmy]

A friend and I kicked this around this evening. This scenario was brought up by a coach at my friends game yesterday (it didn't actually happen, but she was asking if it could be done).

Lineup cards are checked and verified. Umpire then asked if any changes are wanted. Coach wants DP to take Flex spot on defense, taking team down to 9. Umpire accepts. An inning later the flex position is substituted for by a different player (not original flex) from the bench, taking team back to 10. Umpire accepts. Still later, coach asks to bring the original flex back in to the 10 spot in the lineup. Umpire accepts.

I think all stated substitutions are legal but the coach(who brought up the question) thinks that the original flex cannot come back in. She feels that when the 1st player subbed into the flex position that it meant that the original flex had been subbed for twice and now was out. I think it was the position that was subbed for and that original flex still had her one re-entry.

As I said we weren't quite sure. I think NCAA 8.2.4.1 and 8.2.5.2 support my position (by the way, that's from the 2012-13 edition). What say you?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

A friend and I kicked this around this evening. This scenario was brought up by a coach at my friends game yesterday (it didn't actually happen, but she was asking if it could be done).

Lineup cards are checked and verified. Umpire then asked if any changes are wanted. Coach wants DP to take Flex spot on defense, taking team down to 9. Umpire accepts. An inning later the flex position is substituted for by a different player (not original flex) from the bench, taking team back to 10. Umpire accepts. Still later, coach asks to bring the original flex back in to the 10 spot in the lineup. Umpire accepts.

I think all stated substitutions are legal but the coach(who brought up the question) thinks that the original flex cannot come back in. She feels that when the 1st player subbed into the flex position that it meant that the original flex had been subbed for twice and now was out. I think it was the position that was subbed for and that original flex still had her one re-entry.

As I said we weren't quite sure. I think NCAA 8.2.4.1 and 8.2.5.2 support my position (by the way, that's from the 2012-13 edition). What say you?

No, substitution rules apply to the player, not the position. There was no substitution at the beginning of the game, just the DP going on defense and the Flex simply left the game.


I think NCAA really overkills the DP/FLEX rule in the book. Also believe they do a disservice to everyone by using the term "substitute" in the rule when the player referenced does not meet the definition of a substitute.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No, substitution rules apply to the player, not the position. There was no substitution at the beginning of the game, just the DP going on defense and the Flex simply left the game.

I think NCAA really overkills the DP/FLEX rule in the book. Also believe they do a disservice to everyone by using the term "substitute" in the rule when the player referenced does not meet the definition of a substitute.

By rule, that is a substitution in NCAA. (8.2.4.1)
But yes, the lineup changes as described in the OP were all legal.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

By rule, that is a substitution in NCAA. (8.2.4.1)

Yep, sure is in the rule book that way.

[Andy]

I think I may be missing something here....

The starting player in FLEX position enters the game when the lineup is accepted.

That player leaves the game when replaced on defense by the DP.

Coach wants to reinstate the FLEX postion with a player from the bench that is not the starting FLEX player.

At this point, doesn't the starting FLEX player have to re-enter the game to be substituted for? If this is correct then the starting FLEX player has used her re-entry and cannot come back into the game.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

I think I may be missing something here....

The starting player in FLEX position enters the game when the lineup is accepted.

That player leaves the game when replaced on defense by the DP.

Coach wants to reinstate the FLEX postion with a player from the bench that is not the starting FLEX player.

At this point, doesn't the starting FLEX player have to re-enter the game to be substituted for? If this is correct then the starting FLEX player has used her re-entry and cannot come back into the game.

If you can find where it states that, I'll buy it. How can you substitute for a player not in the game? Am I missing somewhere that states for the team to return to 10 the player which previously occupied the slot must return to the game to get benched for the remainder of it.

This is where I don't particularly care for this rule. The original purpose for this rule was increase participation by someone short on hitting skill while not costing the team a weak spot in the batting order. And, much like the LBR, has become a strategy which has somewhat changed the character of the game.

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If you can find where it states that, I'll buy it. How can you substitute for a player not in the game? Am I missing somewhere that states for the team to return to 10 the player which previously occupied the slot must return to the game to get benched for the remainder of it.

This is where I don't particularly care for this rule. The original purpose for this rule was increase participation by someone short on hitting skill while not costing the team a weak spot in the batting order. And, much like the LBR, has become a strategy which has somewhat changed the character of the game.

Whitey has nailed it again.... especially with the LBR

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Andy

Coach wants to reinstate the FLEX postion with a player from the bench that is not the starting FLEX player.

At this point, doesn't the starting FLEX player have to re-enter the game to be substituted for? If this is correct then the starting FLEX player has used her re-entry and cannot come back into the game.

I agree. The umpire should not have accepted the "Flex 2 for Flex 1" change since Flex 1 was not in the game. The coach should have re-entered Flex 1 into the 10-spot on the card (and revert the DP back to offense only), and THEN announce that Flex 1 was being removed for Flex 2. That would have clearly shown that Flex 1 left the game twice.

A substitute has to enter the game for someone currently in the lineup. There was nobody in the 10-spot in the lineup when the coach wanted to enter Flex 2. That sub either enters for someone in the other nine batting order spots, or she enters for Flex 1 after Flex 1 has been re-entered.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Andy

I think I may be missing something here....

The starting player in FLEX position enters the game when the lineup is accepted.

That player leaves the game when replaced on defense by the DP.

Coach wants to reinstate the FLEX postion with a player from the bench that is not the starting FLEX player.

At this point, doesn't the starting FLEX player have to re-enter the game to be substituted for? If this is correct then the starting FLEX player has used her re-entry and cannot come back into the game.

Please note the following Approved Ruling from "Ask Dee". It actually refers to the inverse situation (FLEX playing offense for DP), but makes clear that the position remains to be filled by any eligible substitute even if the starter CANNOT re-enter. This is what most have understood from the beginning of time.

DP/Flex
A.R.8.2^1: If the starting DP gets on base and is replaced by the Flex to run the bases twice in a single game, the DP is then unable to
play for its remainder (starter who has re-entered). If that spot (the one the DP originally occupied but the Flex currently holds) in the
batting order comes up again, may the coach substitute for the DP even though there has been no one in that position for some time or
must he/she substitute for the Flex?
RULING: Once the starting lineup is created with a DP and Flex, those positions exist throughout the game even if one of them is temporarily vacant or inactive. The Flex who entered the game to run for the DP is still the Flex and retains all those rights. The DP position still exists and a substitute may be entered in that spot in the batting order. The number of available (but not necessarily in use) spots never changes…there are either nine or 10 and that cannot change throughout the course of the game. The coach may decide whether to substitute for the DP or Flex based on which player is needed in the lineup or which starter should retain her reentry rights but whatever the reason, it is imperative the coach articulates which player the substitute is for and that that decision is clearly passed along to the scorer and opposing coach.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Please note the following Approved Ruling from "Ask Dee". It actually refers to the inverse situation (FLEX playing offense for DP), but makes clear that the position remains to be filled by any eligible substitute even if the starter CANNOT re-enter. This is what most have understood from the beginning of time.

DP/Flex
A.R.8.2^1: If the starting DP gets on base and is replaced by the Flex to run the bases twice in a single game, the DP is then unable to
play for its remainder (starter who has re-entered). If that spot (the one the DP originally occupied but the Flex currently holds) in the
batting order comes up again, may the coach substitute for the DP even though there has been no one in that position for some time or
must he/she substitute for the Flex?
RULING: Once the starting lineup is created with a DP and Flex, those positions exist throughout the game even if one of them is temporarily vacant or inactive. The Flex who entered the game to run for the DP is still the Flex and retains all those rights. The DP position still exists and a substitute may be entered in that spot in the batting order. The number of available (but not necessarily in use) spots never changes…there are either nine or 10 and that cannot change throughout the course of the game. The coach may decide whether to substitute for the DP or Flex based on which player is needed in the lineup or which starter should retain her reentry rights but whatever the reason, it is imperative the coach articulates which player the substitute is for and that that decision is clearly passed along to the scorer and opposing coach.

Okay, so now I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the original Flex in the OP was not re-entered and then removed a second time when the substitute Flex entered the game?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Manny A

A substitute has to enter the game for someone currently in the lineup. There was nobody in the 10-spot in the lineup when the coach wanted to enter Flex 2. That sub either enters for someone in the other nine batting order spots, or she enters for Flex 1 after Flex 1 has been re-entered.

There is a rationale for why you do not have to re-enter Flex 1. Using:

NCAA 8.2.1.1 The player for whom the DP bats is called the flex. There cannot be a DP without a flex. The flex must be declared on the lineup card before the game.

While the DP is playing defense for the Flex (and only 9 players are currently "in the line up"), the flex position still exists with all the rules governing the DP/Flex relationship.

Now, the coach has the options (NCAA cites):
a) re-enter Flex 1 on defense only (8.2.4.2)
b) re-enter Flex 1 on defense AND offense in the DP position (again, going down to 9) (8.2.5.2.3)
c) enter Flex 2 (listed as a substitute/non-starter on the line up card) on defense only (8.1.2.2). Flex 1 has not re-entered, and she doesn't need to re-enter by 8.2.1.1. The flex position did not go away so anyway can fulfill that role.
d) enter Flex 2 (listed as a substitute/non-starter on the line up card) on defense AND offense in the DP position (again, going down to 9) (combination of C and D).

Now, I will agree that the verbose section 8.2 can be trimmed down quite a bit.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Okay, so now I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the original Flex in the OP was not re-entered and then removed a second time when the substitute Flex entered the game?

Yes. Allow me to annotate the OP (#10 is starting DP, #15 is starting flex):

Or:
coach: blue, #10 is playing defense for the flex (#15)
PU: #10 on defense for the flex. Like this (showing line up card to coach)?
coach: yes
Next inning
coach: blue, #25 is now my flex
PU: Is she playing defense only? (or some other type of question to make sure exactly what type of change the coach wants to make, also verifying positions as NCAA requires positions as part of an accurate line up card).
coach: yes, the DP will not play defense.
PU: #25 is now flex, DP to offense only. Like this (showing line up card to coach)?
coach: yes
Next inning
coach: #15 re-enters as my flex
PU: #15 re-enters. Like this (showing line up card to coach)?
coach: yes.

And yes, you should show and verify all line up card changes to the coach in NCAA.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Okay, so now I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the original Flex in the OP was not re-entered and then removed a second time when the substitute Flex entered the game?

Restating what Big Slick stated, in complete agreement.

Yes, the starting FLEX does NOT have to re-enter to re-establish the FLEX position; as stated in the Approved Ruling, once the game starts with 10 positions, they all exist, even when one is currently vacant ("down to nine"). Any eligible sub can fill that position, just as the starting FLEX could re-enter (but didn't in the case questioned).

Let's look at the process. If the #5 batter #22 playing F3 is replaced by sub #21, and then #21 is replaced by sub #33, has #22 lost eligibility to re-enter? Was she "in effect" re-entered just so #33 could enter? No, and no. Logical subs in sequence do not deprive starter #22 of her re-entry right.

Well, it isn't any different in the OP. FLEX came out, replaced by DP. A different FLEX is legally entered to fill that spot; it doesn't deprive the starter of her re-entry right. All starters have re-entry rights, including DP and FLEX.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Restating what Big Slick stated, in complete agreement.

Yes, the starting FLEX does NOT have to re-enter to re-establish the FLEX position; as stated in the Approved Ruling, once the game starts with 10 positions, they all exist, even when one is currently vacant ("down to nine"). Any eligible sub can fill that position, just as the starting FLEX could re-enter (but didn't in the case questioned).

Let's look at the process. If the #5 batter #22 playing F3 is replaced by sub #21, and then #21 is replaced by sub #33, has #22 lost eligibility to re-enter? Was she "in effect" re-entered just so #33 could enter? No, and no. Logical subs in sequence do not deprive starter #22 of her re-entry right.

Well, it isn't any different in the OP. FLEX came out, replaced by DP. A different FLEX is legally entered to fill that spot; it doesn't deprive the starter of her re-entry right. All starters have re-entry rights, including DP and FLEX.

This isn't any different in any of the other codes right?

Relatedly, if the flex is out and the coach wants to substitute for her with the intention of having her go back to playing defense later would you allow it or call it a projected sub?

[RKBUmp]

If the rules required the Flex or DP to be re-entered before they could be substituted for, it would essentially kill the DP/Flex positions once one of the players re-entry was burned.

Example, Flex bats for DP, DP has left the game. original DP re-enters and next inning coach bats the Flex for the DP again, DP has left the game and has burned her re-entry. If the original DP has to be re-entered before they can be subsituted for, how could you possibly do it after burning their re-entry? This would kill the DP/Flex and restrict the game to 9 players the rest of the game.