NFHS acts to slow down games
 

From the NFHS:

That is seriously their reasoning? They want games to last longer, so lets make the coach call time out more often to enter subs and make the umpire make multiple lineup entries rather than just 1?

As if many high school games dont go on longer than they need to in the first place.

I selectively edited their comment on the rule change for sarcastic effect.

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."

Our (MTD, Jr. and Sr.) two cents.
 

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.

No rule set has ever issued a definition of what a projected sub was (until now). And, their case plays all involved trying to make 2 moves with the same player, not entering multiple players on offense.

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.

Actual example from about 3 years ago in the playoffs... caused a long delay and a protest...

Sub #10 pinch hitting for Starter # 1. Coach says 1 will be going right back in for 10. Umpire accepts this without clarification, informs scorekeeper.

Team bats around, 10 bats again. On defense, 1 goes back in.

Argument ensues over whether 10 batting again was a 2nd reentry (making 1 ineligible to come back in) as the scorekeeper and umpire were told 1 was reentering after 10's first at bat.

Here is a link to the rule change:

2016 Softball Rules Changes

Didn't see a detailed explanation, but the POE's will be:

• FP Strike Zone
• DP/Flex Education (whatever that means)
• FP Pitching

Whenever I see something like this from NFHS, I quietly say to myself, over and over, "Thank GOD we (New York) don't follow NFHS...." Right, EsqUmp?

NFHS needs to define "participate". Being in the lineup as a replacement for BO #7 while BO #5 is up can be participating.

Any change of the lineup that takes effect immediately is not "projected".

2-57-4 New: Art 4… Projected Substitute. A projected substitute is a player who does not immediately participate in the game. Projected substitutes are not permitted (3-3-3).

Ridiculous wording and the constant discussion about this is just as absurd.

All substitutes are in effect at the moment they are announced. Now, just how difficult is that to understand? No "what ifs" or "buts", just plain and simple.

Apparently, NFHS disagrees. A substitute may now only be accepted when the player is running out on defense, trotting to a base as a PR, or carrying a bat into the batter's box.

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.

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 thought we gave up that hope long ago. :rolleyes:

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 ;) ):
(bold and underline added).

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

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?

Quote:

[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.

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 :)

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)

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 :cool:.

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

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.

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.

Doesn't this conflict with this

Same argument I made when ASA did this.

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

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.

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

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

That has always been my argument to accepting multiple offensive subs is protracted substitutions. The visiting teams starting lineup is entirely projected as not one of those players has yet participated under that definition. It is only a matter of time before a coach tries to change his lineup after the lineup is submitted and argues it should not count as a substitution because those players have not yet participated.

Now there is some clarification (from an email I received, I assume this is a NFHS comment):

Mind if I ask where that email came from? I agree with it but seems to be in direct conflict with the previous NFHS statement that came out about not immediately participating.

It is great if they are backing off a bit, but it does conflict with the explanation of the rule change on the NFHS web site,

What a roundabout bullshit explanation and/or interpretation.

Now you are going to have some real intelligent folks try to "remove" a player from a line-up before providing a substitution. Are these people that dense that they do not understand that since only one player can occupy a slot in the line-up the providing a substitute effectively removes the player in that spot from the line-up?

How about something as simple as, "All substitutions or changes are effective immediately upon submission to and acceptance of the umpire" ? End of story. No maybes, what ifs or buts, all aspects of the game take place in the present, not the future.