NFHS acts to slow down games

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

the athletic side of an educational institution .

I thought we gave up that hope long ago.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Only if they are as stupid as I have accused them of being over the years

My statement meets the proposed rule change. All changes are effective immediately and those who are entering are now participating in the game.

I cannot help it if an organization representing the athletic side of an educational institution are not smart enough to word is properly.

Well, draw your own conclusions. This is from the actual comments on the rule change from the NFHS web site (this part was somewhat enhanced in my sarcastic re-write ):

...there are situations where coaches attempt to make multiple substitutions on offense that may not happen immediately. This is an inappropriate practice on offense because players can only be substituted prior to their immediate scheduled at-bat. Therefore, coaches may only substitute for the immediate player at bat.

(bold and underline added).

(I wonder if they realize that their commentary seems to say that a pinch runner is no longer allowed... )

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Only if they are as stupid as I have accused them of being over the years

My statement meets the proposed rule change. All changes are effective immediately and those who are entering are now participating in the game.

I cannot help it if an organization representing the athletic side of an educational institution are not smart enough to word is properly.

I think we all understand your POV on this. However, NFHS has been pretty clear that your interpretation is not THEIR interpretation. Their rule "change" (I would say it's a clarification) is that your statement does not meet the way they want it done.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I think we all understand your POV on this. However, NFHS has been pretty clear that your interpretation is not THEIR interpretation. Their rule "change" (I would say it's a clarification) is that your statement does not meet the way they want it done.

My point of view? How about the view of the way it has been for decades by a majority of rule sets?

[b]Rule 2-57-4 has been added because there are situations where coaches attempt to make multiple substitutions on offense that may not happen immediately. This is an inappropriate practice on offense because players can only be substituted prior to their immediate scheduled at-bat. Therefore, coaches may only substitute for the immediate player at bat.

The practice of "projected" subs includes changes the coach d0es not want to occur until some point in the future. As has been for decades, any change offered occurs immediately. It is a change involving a player in the line-up, not positions in the field or at bat.

IMO, NFHS is over-reaching in an effort to make their point and has come up with wording that is of no benefit to the teams, umpires or the game.

What happens if you have a player ejected while on offense? Are you not going to immediately ask for a substitute? If there are no substitutes, will you allow a team to continue shorthanded when it is not allowed simply because you are told not to accept an offensive substitute until that player is due to bat?

Is that a TWP scenario? Could be, maybe not.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

What happens if you have a player ejected while on offense? Are you not going to immediately ask for a substitute? If there are no substitutes, will you allow a team to continue shorthanded when it is not allowed simply because you are told not to accept an offensive substitute until that player is due to bat? Is that a TWP scenario? Could be, maybe not.

Actually, Mike, in Fed play, you are not required to get a replacement for the ejected player right away. Furthermore, Fed allows you to play short handed due to ejection (unlike ASA).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Actually, Mike, in Fed play, you are not required to get a replacement for the ejected player right away. Furthermore, Fed allows you to play short handed due to ejection (unlike ASA).

Well, you got me.

Still absurd and have to wonder what type of minds actually allowed such a thing to get to the point of discussion.

I find it amazing how the simplest rules, procedures and mechanics seem to cause the most issues. But why should softball lag behind the dummying down of everything else in this country

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, you got me.

What? HOLY S%$T! A large cheer rises from Hess Fields (FYI, we now have a new complex and Hess is used as an alternate site)

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Still absurd and have to wonder what type of minds actually allowed such a thing to get to the point of discussion.

I find it amazing how the simplest rules, procedures and mechanics seem to cause the most issues. But why should softball lag behind the dummying down of everything else in this country

I know some of those "minds" and I'm not amazed. I'm amazed that (at your age) you are still amazed. I quit being amazed at the age of 35 . . . you know, last year .

I still have not received answer to my inquiries raised in post #4.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I have not ever allowed a projected substitution in either baseball or fast pitch softball. While it may slow the game down a bit it is one ounce of prevention that prevents one pound of horse manure hitting the fan.

MTD, Sr.

There is nothing in OBR that prevents you from accepting multiple offensive changes to the batting order. The players are in the game as of the manager telling you and the replaced players are out of the game at that point. It would be rare for a manager to want to tie himself down like that but it can happen.
I agree that projected re-entries and defensive position changes should not be accepted.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I have sent two scenarios to my state rule interpreter, who is on the national rule committee. Both are "common procedures" in the past which may now be disallowed by rule.

Scenario 1: The visiting team entering the DP on defense at the plate conference.
Scenario 2: A sub (not the flex) runs for the DP. After the offensive half of the inning, the coach wants to re-enter the DP as to not forget when it is her time to bat.

In neither of these scenarios will the player "immediately play."

To me, #2 offers the most absurdity. The coach can and MUST reenter the DP if she is playing defense, but may NOT if she isn't playing defense.

[darkside]

Doesn't this

NOTE: One American flag, not to exceed 2 inches by 3 inches, may be worn or occupy space on the jersey.

conflict with this

4 U.S. Code § 8 - Respect for flag (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by darkside

Doesn't this
conflict with this

Same argument I made when ASA did this.

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by SWFLguy

Seriously, what is so wrong with say a coach entering a sub and telling you that the player being subbed for will re-enter. Why is it so critical that such change be made in two separate announcements? I don't get the need for it. Easier for me to make a note one time. And don't give me the "but if" excuse. You mean I can't handle that if it happens? Move the game along.

I'd like to see how you would indicate this on your lineup card...

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Yes, this is is absurd.

As I said, if NFHS insists on this definition as written they need to define "participate".

Being in the lineup as a replacement for the seventh batter while the fifth batter is up is participating.
Just as the starting players lineup is participating as soon as it is official. Including the ninth batter.

I disagree. I think logic is pretty clear as to define participate. Being in the lineup is not participating in this regard. Participating is doing some action involved in the game itself. The reason we have rulebooks with 1500 definitions is people have forgotten what the logical definition of a word is.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by darkside

Doesn't this
conflict with this

Yes it does, yes it does, yes it does and has continued to conflict with both the code and respect.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I disagree. I think logic is pretty clear as to define participate. Being in the lineup is not participating in this regard. Participating is doing some action involved in the game itself. The reason we have rulebooks with 1500 definitions is people have forgotten what the logical definition of a word is.

Then each "starter" needs to be reported separately as they come to bat.