DP/FLEX Memory Tools

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Mar 26, 2013
1,934
0
The ASA book is one of the easiest rule books to follow and that includes any Federation, NCAA & MLB
A self-serving opinion that is not shared widely. Dream on... Any org run in a rational and professional manner improves their documentation when it's apparent it's not clear instead of doing a half-rear job by only issuing a rule clarification/interpretation without fixing the root cause. Excellent documentation is easily understandable without being overly voluminous. Brevity at the expense of clarity doesn't get the job done.

Please read my responses carefully because you obviously had trouble comprehending what you read.

What an idiotic statement. Someone has an ego problem because s/he works at learning the proper manner in which to enforce the rules of the game?
Nope, I never said that. I have great respect for everyone that helps people understand the rules better in a respectful manner. My issue is with you belittling everyone else because they don't understand the rules like you do.

Umpired for 48 years and wished EVERYONE would take the time to actually read and learn the rules instead of going out of one's way to try to find loopholes and ways around the rules to satisfy their need to be superior. I used to open up EVERY clinic and school, free of charge, to ANYONE who was interested in the rules and mechanics.
That's fine, but off-topic. I hope your in-person attitude was better than your one online - otherwise people probably avoided you.

I find it amazing that people always resort to declaring those who know the rules as ego-maniacs while they sit around with their thumb up their rear and prefer to degrade those who don't join them
Off target again. I respect your knowledge of the rules and I've learned a lot from you (and others) over the years, although others have had to clean up after some of your cryptic responses. It is your ATTITUDE, not your knowledge, that people find objectionable. You rarely post without taking a shot at somebody or something. Pathetic.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
A self-serving opinion that is not shared widely. Dream on... Any org run in a rational and professional manner improves their documentation when it's apparent it's not clear instead of doing a half-rear job by only issuing a rule clarification/interpretation without fixing the root cause. Excellent documentation is easily understandable without being overly voluminous. Brevity at the expense of clarity doesn't get the job done.

Really? Just how many qualified folks did you check with about the rule book to come to that conclusion? Those org that try to cover every scenario within the text of the rules do not provide a well organized publication. MLB, NFL, NCAA are convoluted because they try to address specific scenarios within the text of the rules, sometimes in multiple locations. Those organizations which use casebooks are, IMO, a cleaner and easier read on the rule side supplemented by a case book which is much easier to adjust than rules.

BTW, that is not a way to learn the rules and I rarely use a casebook in instruction.


Please read my responses carefully because you obviously had trouble comprehending what you read.


Nope, I never said that. I have great respect for everyone that helps people understand the rules better in a respectful manner. My issue is with you belittling everyone else because they don't understand the rules like you do.

That's fine, but off-topic. I hope your in-person attitude was better than your one online - otherwise people probably avoided you.

Off target again. I respect your knowledge of the rules and I've learned a lot from you (and others) over the years, although others have had to clean up after some of your cryptic responses. It is your ATTITUDE, not your knowledge, that people find objectionable. You rarely post without taking a shot at somebody or something. Pathetic.

You want sugar coating, go to a bakery. Really don't care about anyone's opinion of my attitude, I'm not posting to make friends.
 
Mar 26, 2013
1,934
0
Really? Just how many qualified folks did you check with about the rule book to come to that conclusion?
You seem to think the only people that matter are the ones that already understand the rules. My conclusion is based on multitudes of posts by people, umpires included, still learning the rules after having read them.

Those org that try to cover every scenario within the text of the rules do not provide a well organized publication. MLB, NFL, NCAA are convoluted because they try to address specific scenarios within the text of the rules, sometimes in multiple locations. Those organizations which use casebooks are, IMO, a cleaner and easier read on the rule side supplemented by a case book which is much easier to adjust than rules.
Your opinions aren't based on the facts of the matter. Crabby_Bob already posted the 2 orgs you originally derided, NFHS and NCAA, also have case books. Therefore, they obviously didn't try to cover "every scenario" in their rule books and also fall within your best practices. They include some examples to clarify the rules.

You also failed to address my main point - ASA's over-reliance on rule clarifications and interpretations. Umpires routinely go back and forth between questioning posts not being based on a rule book and then explaining other rules based on case books, rule interpretations and even - gasp - umpire training materials. You can't have it both ways and my preference is rule books that can stand on their own.

Really don't care about anyone's opinion of my attitude, I'm not posting to make friends.
That's obvious, however it doesn't excuse your unprovoked posts meant to antagonize and/or deride others.
 
Oct 24, 2010
308
28
You seem to think the only people that matter are the ones that already understand the rules. My conclusion is based on multitudes of posts by people, umpires included, still learning the rules after having read them.


Your opinions aren't based on the facts of the matter. Crabby_Bob already posted the 2 orgs you originally derided, NFHS and NCAA, also have case books. Therefore, they obviously didn't try to cover "every scenario" in their rule books and also fall within your best practices. They include some examples to clarify the rules.

You also failed to address my main point - ASA's over-reliance on rule clarifications and interpretations. Umpires routinely go back and forth between questioning posts not being based on a rule book and then explaining other rules based on case books, rule interpretations and even - gasp - umpire training materials. You can't have it both ways and my preference is rule books that can stand on their own.

I posted that NFHS has a casebook and interpretations (like ASA) and that NCAA has over 50 pages of additional approved rulings, not to mention many A.R.s within the actual rules. That makes NCAA much more like baseball (OBR).

IMHO, ASA's rulebook stands on its own as well or better than any other.
 
Mar 26, 2013
1,934
0
I posted that NFHS has a casebook and interpretations (like ASA) and that NCAA has over 50 pages of additional approved rulings, not to mention many A.R.s within the actual rules. That makes NCAA much more like baseball (OBR).
True. Is there a significant difference between approved rulings and casebook/interpretations beyond form and nomenclature?

IMHO, ASA's rulebook stands on its own as well or better than any other.
It would be an interesting experiment to give an open book test to average coaches, parents and umpires to see how each group does with each rule book. Besides choosing an answer, they'd have to cite the applicable rule(s) to make sure they didn't guess or already know the correct answer. I'm confident I can come up with a set of 10 questions where they'd fail (<=50% correct) with the ASA rule book and pass (>= 70%) with Fed and NCAA. Do you think you could come up with 10 questions that would have the opposite results - pass with ASA and fail with others?
 
Feb 3, 2011
1,880
48
One of the frequent questions I see about the ASA rule is: Can the flex run for the DP multiple times in the same game?

FWIW, I greatly appreciate the way MTR provides clear and definitive answers to those of us in the forum who appreciate clear, concise language with the understanding that not every contingency can be put into writing. It's important for coaches and players to know the rules of the game.
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
One of the frequent questions I see about the ASA rule is: Can the flex run for the DP multiple times in the same game?

The DP/FLEX rule is the same for any orginazation. The flex can run for the DP any number of times during a game. But, each time the flex does, the DP has left the game and must be re-entered to bat or play defense for another player. As each player only has one re-entry, the second time the flex runs for the DP another available substitute would have to enter the game to fill the DP position.
 
Mar 13, 2010
960
0
Columbus, Ohio
One of the frequent questions I see about the ASA rule is: Can the flex run for the DP multiple times in the same game?

Yes. But remember that "multiple times" just means more than once. So even if it can only happen twice, then that would be "multiple times"! Maybe they're asking if it can happen "an unlimited number of times" or, at least, "as many times as they want to".

Maybe it helps to think of the DP and FLEX as positions instead of individual players. The two positions can swap back and forth an unlimited number of times during a game. But the players who occupy those positions are confined by the re-entry rules, same as any other player on the field.

If you only have ten players, and are using the DP/FLEX, then the FLEX can run for the DP twice. The first time it happens the DP has left the game. If the DP subsequently goes back in later, then she has burned her one re-entry. If the FLEX runs for her a second time, she has burned her re-entry. Now you're stuck with that line-up, with only nine batting, for the rest of the game.

If you have a bunch of subs on the bench, you could sub different players in and out of the DP and FLEX positions the entire game. So a FLEX could run for a DP a bunch of times (I suppose, in theory, an infinite number of times, if you really need to put a maximum number on it).

I don't know if that makes sense or if it's about as clear as mud. Even explaining different DP/FLEX situations can get pretty convoluted. The DP/FLEX rule takes up an entire page of the rule book and reads about like the tax code. I'll tell you how I tackled learning the rule- though people might not like it because it's not a gimmicky shortcut!

I read it from the rule book line-by-line. Instead of breezing through it all at once, I took it one section at a time. For each requirement of the rule- each line, if you will- I would not go to the next line until I was confident that I completely understood the line I just read. I really think that if you try to blow through the whole thing all at once, it's going to confuse you. But if you master each requirement of the rule one at a time, then do not move on to the next one until you completely understand what it says, by the time you get to the end it should begin to make sense.

Then you'll probably only need to read it a few more times before you have it down pat!
 
Last edited:
Jul 6, 2014
50
0
Ohio
Yes. But remember that "multiple times" just means more than once. So even if it can only happen twice, then that would be "multiple times"! Maybe they're asking if it can happen "an unlimited number of times" or, at least, "as many times as they want to".

Maybe it helps to think of the DP and FLEX as positions instead of individual players. The two positions can swap back and forth an unlimited number of times during a game. But the players who occupy those positions are confined by the re-entry rules, same as any other player on the field.

If you only have ten players, and are using the DP/FLEX, then the FLEX can run for the DP twice. The first time it happens the DP has left the game. If the DP subsequently goes back in later, then she has burned her one re-entry. If the FLEX runs for her a second time, she has burned her re-entry. Now you're stuck with that line-up, with only nine batting, for the rest of the game.

If you have a bunch of subs on the bench, you could sub different players in and out of the DP and FLEX positions the entire game. So a FLEX could run for a DP a bunch of times (I suppose, in theory, an infinite number of times, if you really need to put a maximum number on it).

I don't know if that makes sense or if it's about as clear as mud. Even explaining different DP/FLEX situations can get pretty convoluted. The DP/FLEX rule takes up an entire page of the rule book and reads about like the tax code. I'll tell you how I tackled learning the rule- though people might not like it because it's not a gimmicky shortcut!

I read it from the rule book line-by-line. Instead of breezing through it all at once, I took it one section at a time. For each requirement of the rule- each line, if you will- I would not go to the next line until I was confident that I completely understood the line I just read. I really think that if you try to blow through the whole thing all at once, it's going to confuse you. But if you master each requirement of the rule one at a time, then do not move on to the next one until you completely understand what it says, by the time you get to the end it should begin to make sense.

Then you'll probably only need to read it a few more times before you have it down pat!

Hey now, I wasn't posting a gimmicky short cut Mr. :) Just something that helped me later in my journey as indeed I studied and studied - just think little memory tools help in that process.

In regard to the FLEX running multiple times for the DP, I posted a sort of progression in my OP where in the third part I mentioned thinking of them as designations (as opposed to players). For me, taking that together with the first two parts helps in understanding "multiple times".
 
Feb 3, 2011
1,880
48
Yes. But remember that "multiple times" just means more than once. So even if it can only happen twice, then that would be "multiple times"! Maybe they're asking if it can happen "an unlimited number of times" or, at least, "as many times as they want to".

Maybe it helps to think of the DP and FLEX as positions instead of individual players. The two positions can swap back and forth an unlimited number of times during a game. But the players who occupy those positions are confined by the re-entry rules, same as any other player on the field.

If you only have ten players, and are using the DP/FLEX, then a FLEX can run for the DP twice. The first time it happens the DP has left the game. If the DP subsequently goes back in later, then she has burned her one re-entry. If the FLEX runs for her a second time, she has burned her re-entry. Now you're stuck with that line-up, with only nine batting, for the rest of the game.

If you have a bunch of subs on the bench, you could sub different players in and out of the DP and FLEX positions the entire game. So a FLEX could run for a DP a bunch of times (I suppose, in theory, an infinite number of times, if you really need to put a maximum number on it).

I don't know if that makes sense or if it's about as clear as mud. Even explaining different DP/FLEX situations can get pretty convoluted. The DP/FLEX rule takes up an entire page of the rule book and reads about like the tax code. I'll tell you how I tackled learning the rule- though people might not like it because it's not a gimmicky shortcut!

I read it from the rule book line-by-line. Instead of breezing through it all at once, I took it one section at a time. For each requirement of the rule- each line, if you will- I would not go to the next line until I was confident that I completely understood the line I just read. I really think that if you try to blow through the whole thing all at once, it's going to confuse you. But if you master each requirement of the rule one at a time, then do not move on to the next one until you completely understand what it says, by the time you get to the end it should begin to make sense.

Then you'll probably only need to read it a few more times before you have it down pat!

That is indeed the question I always see being asked, yes! And as you noted, it only grows more complicated from there. Thanks for the advice on how to consume and understand it all. What I've typically done is limited myself to the applications I've felt would be used most often and would thus be of greatest benefit to my team - without confusing me in the process! - which means that I have not ever sought to take full advantage of the powers of the rule.

Upon reading your answer, it is my understanding that the lone FLEX can run for a lone player in the DP slot exactly twice, even if a substitute replaces the FLEX. If the DP gets on base in her initial at-bat and the FLEX comes in to run for her, then the DP has "left the game", because this change was on offense. The DP may then re-enter the game only once.

If the DP is subbed out for another player, the new player in the DP slot is also entitled to 1 re-entry, so with an infinite number of subs available, the swapping could continue all day, the restriction being that each new player would only get the 1 re-entry.

So, as far as a real-world example goes, if we're playing exactly 10 in a game, and the DP gets on in her first 2 at-bats and the FLEX runs for her both times, then the (former) FLEX would bat for the remainder of the game, unless subbed out for a bench player. The starting DP - having already used her 1 re-entry - would *not* become an eligible substitute.

I know there is a lot more addressed by the rule, but is my understanding correct up to this point?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,473
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top