USA Softball Rule Changes for 2019

[IRISHMAFIA]

USA Rule Changes for 2019

Not much. Some mediocre changes. Some changes which IMO show a weakening in for an NGB.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

USA Rule Changes for 2019

Not much. Some mediocre changes. Some changes which IMO show a weakening in for an NGB.

If you are referring to the uniform rules, I don't think that is a big deal. I think that aligns to what has been allowed in the recent past. I think it just updates with the times.

I do like the reporting the pitching/catching change for CR purposes. I think these defensive positions are the only ones that need to be reported.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

If you are referring to the uniform rules, I don't think that is a big deal. I think that aligns to what has been allowed in the recent past. I think it just updates with the times.

I do like the reporting the pitching/catching change for CR purposes. I think these defensive positions are the only ones that need to be reported.

Of course, we have already instructed coaches to report those.
The question is the effect of a team wanting a CR after a non-reported change.
It seems to me that is still the same, non-reported means it did not happen for lineup purposes.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

USA Rule Changes for 2019

Not much. Some mediocre changes. Some changes which IMO show a weakening in for an NGB.

If you mean the EP change, making it compatible with other sanctions, yes but no real effect.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

If you are referring to the uniform rules, I don't think that is a big deal. I think that aligns to what has been allowed in the recent past. I think it just updates with the times.

Well, IMO, the ASA/USA attempt to be like everyone else has weakened their brand

[youngump]

Rule 5, Section 3A: All games played using a Time Limit will be considered Regulation Games regardless of the number of innings completed/played.

This is a terrible wording. Everyone knows that they mean all games which end because of a time limit are regulation games, but surely they don't mean the game that ends 0-1 4 outs into the game due to lightning to be official.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by youngump

Rule 5, Section 3A: All games played using a Time Limit will be considered Regulation Games regardless of the number of innings completed/played.

This is a terrible wording. Everyone knows that they mean all games which end because of a time limit are regulation games, but surely they don't mean the game that ends 0-1 4 outs into the game due to lightning to be official.

Rules or Semantics, we don't get both, again

See below, 12/4 9:30 AM

[ilyazhito]

I would say that "Any game where a time limit is used, which ends due to reaching the time limit, shall be considered a regulation game. Time limits include...". That way, everyone would know that games ending due to the time limit are to be treated as official games, even though the appropriate amount of innings may not have been completed.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I would say that "Any game where a time limit is used, which ends because of reaching the time limit, shall be considered a regulation game. Time limits include...". That way, everyone would know that games ending due to the time limit are to be treated as official games, even though the appropriate amount of innings may not have been completed.

Good wording.

I suppose the phrase "using a Time Limit" will be said to mean the game ending on a time limit, because we don't really USE the time limit except to end the game. Also, the "additional inning" in pool play is also caused by the time limit.

That will be my interpretation.

This whole discussion makes me wonder what protest caused it, as time limit games have always been regulation.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Or.....

Any game ending due to a time limit shall be considered a regulation game.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Of course, we have already instructed coaches to report those.
The question is the effect of a team wanting a CR after a non-reported change.
It seems to me that is still the same, non-reported means it did not happen for lineup purposes.

Personally, I think the rule change is one to fix coaches' stupidity. When I first started out umpiring USA (and NFHS) softball, I'd take extra efforts to determine if the pitcher and catcher in the game are the ones listed in my lineup card, just so I could make sure a coach would be allowed to enter a CR for one of them.

Then I came to the realization that it wasn't my responsibility to worry about it. If the coach wanted to enter a CR for a player who was not listed as the current pitcher or catcher on my card, I would just say, "Sorry coach, but I can't accept that." Not my fault that I didn't make the annotation on my card of the new pitcher or catcher. It behooved the coach to keep me straight, and if he/she didn't want to because the rule book didn't require it, that's on him/her.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Then I came to the realization that it wasn't my responsibility to worry about it. If the coach wanted to enter a CR for a player who was not listed as the current pitcher or catcher on my card, I would just say, "Sorry coach, but I can't accept that." Not my fault that I didn't make the annotation on my card of the new pitcher or catcher. It behooved the coach to keep me straight, and if he/she didn't want to because the rule book didn't require it, that's on him/her.

But by rule that's wrong, no? The catcher and pitcher are the last player to play that position not the person listed on your lineup card. And what would you do if he then said, fine, well then I'm courtesy running for Maddy who's on third base, she's my first baseman now but your card says she's the pitcher.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

But by rule that's wrong, no? The catcher and pitcher are the last player to play that position not the person listed on your lineup card. And what would you do if he then said, fine, well then I'm courtesy running for Maddy who's on third base, she's my first baseman now but your card says she's the pitcher.

Well, if he said that to me, then I would immediately change Maddy from F1 to F3 on my card since he just announced the change, and not allow the CR.

The PU's lineup card is the official document that captures the legal batting order, who is in the game, who is on the bench, who can and cannot enter/reenter, etc. It is up to the coach to ensure what he/she has in the game matches the PU's card, not the other way around. Otherwise, there would be no requirement for the coach to inform the PU when he/she makes any changes.

Yes, in theory, the coach could suggest entering a CR for Maddy, who is the pitcher on the PU's card, if he didn't tell the PU earlier she's been playing at first base. What proof would the PU have that Maddy moved over there? Is it really the PU's responsibility to be that vigilant inning after inning? If it was, then there would be no rules requiring the coach to inform the PU of any change whatsoever.

And without that proof, the PU really has no choice but to allow a CR for Maddy.

Now, when that happens, I'm pretty sure the opposing team will tell the PU, "Hey, he can't do that! She's been playing at first base since the last inning!" Whereupon the PU will ask the coach if that's true. If the coach wants to lie about it, that's another issue entirely.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by youngump

But by rule that's wrong, no? The catcher and pitcher are the last player to play that position not the person listed on your lineup card. And what would you do if he then said, fine, well then I'm courtesy running for Maddy who's on third base, she's my first baseman now but your card says she's the pitcher.

Which is why it is a conundrum, always has been, and the rule change to a requirement does not solve it.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Which is why it is a conundrum, always has been, and the rule change to a requirement does not solve it.

Now I'm confused. Why doesn't the rule change make a difference?

What I find faulty with it is the lack of a penalty associated with a violation. What happens when a coach fails to report that he/she has entered a new pitcher or catcher? In NCAA play, if a coach fails to report a defensive change, the opposing coach may bring it to the umpire's attention immediately after that player is involved in a play, and as a result has the option to take the results of the play or negate the play (essentially a "do-over"). But based upon the Rule Changes document, there is nothing that mentions a penalty.

Here's another thing: suppose the coach has no intention of using a CR for his/her pitcher or catcher. Better yet, he/she doesn't have any players eligible to serve as a CR because he/she has nobody on the bench. If he/she make a pitching or catching change, is that coach required to report it? The new rule will be listed under the CR rule, not under the substitution rule in Section 4, so without a CR available to him/her, is there really a requirement to make the announcement?

Perhaps this will all be addressed when the rule book comes out. For now, this is the conundrum.