Some of the proposed changes for ASA FP & general rules:

JO Ball

Quote:

There are five proposed changes mandating face masks/guards for JO batting helmets. Most likely, only one will be brought to the general council and pass. It is also likely the "mandating" of the masks will not be effective until 2005 giving manufacturers and NOCSAE time to get the standards in place along with allowing the teams time to fund this project.

This was a no-brainer

Quote:

Another change is to allow the runner to leave the base in FP when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand OR "when the pivot foot leaves the pitching plate on the delivery."

The reason offered was that different pitching styles proved to be advantageous to some teams (?)

Quote:

There is a change requesting the reinstatement of an interference call when a batter not entitled to advance to 1B on a D3K runs toward 1B. The reasoning is that the defense shouldn't bear the responsibility of the rule and that it can give the offense an unfair advantage.

IOW, the defense isn't smart enough to know the situation.)

Quote:

Change DEFO to FLEX because a DEFO can play offense and defense.

I disagree with this because I don't believe the DEFO is still the DEFO when they are in the offensive line up.



Other changes affecting all disciplines:

Quote:

Remove "about to receive" from rules governing obstruction.

Make life easier for umpires and conforms to international rules.

Quote:

The clock on a time-limit game begins at the end of the pre-game meeting at the plate.

I like this one, but then again, that's because it is my proposal :)

Quote:

Any player who leaves the game for any reason other than ejection may return to play at any time. IOW, if a team goes shorthanded due to injury or a player's absence, that player may return at their pleasure.

I don't like this one. Coaches in different forums I visit have already demonstrated their willingness to abuse the shorthanded rule which already offers a team without the proper number of players relief from forfeiting. Coaches will sit an injured player and take the out, then all of a sudden in the 7th inning, the injured player will be back in the line up.


Just thought I would throw this out for you perusal, and I'm sure a comment or two :) I'll try to get the SP proposals shortly.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
[B]Some of the proposed changes for ASA FP & general rules:

JO Ball

Quote:

Another change is to allow the runner to leave the base in FP when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand OR "when the pivot foot leaves the pitching plate on the delivery."

I don't like the sound of this. It is easy to enforce the rule as it is, because it is black and white, but this proposed change seems to add a little more confusion to it all.

Quote:

There is a change requesting the reinstatement of an interference call when a batter not entitled to advance to 1B on a D3K runs toward 1B. The reasoning is that the defense shouldn't bear the responsibility of the rule and that it can give the offense an unfair advantage.

IOW, the defense isn't smart enough to know the situation.) I agree...

Quote:

Change DEFO to FLEX because a DEFO can play offense and defense.

I disagree with this because I don't believe the DEFO is still the DEFO when they are in the offensive line up. Isn't that why the proposed name change?

Quote:

The clock on a time-limit game begins at the end of the pre-game meeting at the plate.

I like this one, but then again, that's because it is my proposal :) I like this one too. This is the way I usually do it anyhow.

I spoke to a member of the ASA National Umpire Staff about this one earlier this year.

He stated that by allowing the runners to leave the base when the pitcher's pivot foot left the pitcher's plate would give the runner an extra step or two. Because this extra step or two is a tremendous advantage in stealing a base, the "leap and drag" pitchers would have to change their style to keep the pivot foot on the pitchers plate longer in order to eliminate the extra step the runners would be getting.

When the pitchers adjust, it should virtually eliminate the whining and complaining about illegal pitches due to crow hops and leaps. The general feeling is that too many pitchers are borderline illegal and that umpires are hesitant to call illegal pitches.

The "ASA is your mother" move continues on its relentless path... http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0...smiley-002.gif


Heavens, we can't have one team having an advantage! http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0...smiley-003.gif

The dumbing down of the game also continues on its relentless march. I hope this is defeated.

If this was the price ASA had to pay to get rule alignment with Fed on this one, then I can live with it.



Yeah!!!! http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0...smiley-033.gif

Good proposal. Thanks, Mike! http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0...smiley-003.gif

I don't like this either, for the same reasons. It will be abused. Thanks for the update, Mike.

Somebody must had heard me on this 3rd strike dropped situation where the runner causes the "Diversion". You guys jumped all over me 2 months ago when I thought the play should be killed, rather than the stealing being legal at other bags.

And rightly so... we call the game as the rules require, not as the rules should be. And, I disagree with this proposed change, as you can tell from my post above. The current rule does NOT (IMO) give the offense an advantage; it just requires the defense to know the game situation. I just can't believe that this is a rampant problem.

At the 12U level, it is tough enough to get the BR to go soon enough to have a chance to beat out the D3K (which is a defensive mistake, don't forget), and at older ages, DC is as DC does, IMO.

Of course, we can always just can the D3K rule. If it's strike three, you're out, PERIOD! Just like in the 10U game.

How well do you think that would go over with the purists?

I'm for dispensing with "about to receive," which it turns out means "the ball is between the fielder and the runner," in other words, not what you would think it means. However, let's also redefine the crash rule with precise language that gives a little more protection to the fielder.

I had to prepare to do some NSA games at the end of the year and noticed that they had no "about to receive" clause. However, I'd like to see something that prohibits a crash if the fielder is "in the immediate act" of catching a throw or some such wording. If F2 is picking up a ball on the ground or juggling the ball, the runner should not be able to crash him.

There are five proposed changes mandating face masks/guards for JO batting helmets. Most likely, only one will be brought to the general council and pass. It is also likely the "mandating" of the masks will not be effective until 2005 giving manufacturers and NOCSAE time to get the standards in place along with allowing the teams time to fund this project.

This was a no-brainer Yup, I agree with thos one, too.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another change is to allow the runner to leave the base in FP when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand OR "when the pivot foot leaves the pitching plate on the delivery."

The reason offered was that different pitching styles proved to be advantageous to some teams (?)

With Andy's explanation, this could be a very interesting change. I would have opposed this change until that explanation, now I'm neutral on it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a change requesting the reinstatement of an interference call when a batter not entitled to advance to 1B on a D3K runs toward 1B. The reasoning is that the defense shouldn't bear the responsibility of the rule and that it can give the offense an unfair advantage.


IOW, the defense isn't smart enough to know the situation.)
This is a bad change, but like then again, there's the dumbing down movement - just look at the scholastic system......

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change DEFO to FLEX because a DEFO can play offense and defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I disagree with this because I don't believe the DEFO is still the DEFO when they are in the offensive line up.

This is a good change. With this change, ASA, Fed, & NCAA will match rule and terminology.


Other changes affecting all disciplines:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove "about to receive" from rules governing obstruction.

Make life easier for umpires and conforms to international rules.

Better get some very good case book plays for this change. With the definition of "about to receive" we had a measurable standard. Dunno that this is a good change, yet.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The clock on a time-limit game begins at the end of the pre-game meeting at the plate.

I like this one, but then again, that's because it is my proposal
OK, no strong feelings about this one.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any player who leaves the game for any reason other than ejection may return to play at any time. IOW, if a team goes shorthanded due to injury or a player's absence, that player may return at their pleasure.

I don't like this one. Coaches in different forums I visit have already demonstrated their willingness to abuse the shorthanded rule which already offers a team without the proper number of players relief from forfeiting. Coaches will sit an injured player and take the out, then all of a sudden in the 7th inning, the injured player will be back in the line up.

I agree, bad change.


Just thought I would throw this out for you perusal, and I'm sure a comment or two I'll try to get the SP proposals shortly.

Thanks for the heads-up, Mike.

Steve M

"Remove "about to receive" from rules governing obstruction."


YES ! ! :D

But you knew that I'd say this, didn't you Dakota! :p

WMB

You did drop a subtle hint or two! ;)

Yeah. And I was thinking, too, that if a runner from 1B "steals" second on ball four and causes the catcher to throw the ball to second base and the ball is over thrown in to the outfield, that should be interference, too. Or if a coach yells to his player really loudly, "Go! Go! Go!" and the player doesn't go, but the fielder throws the ball to the next base, that should be interference, too. Or if a mom yells from the stands, "Slide!" but a player doesn't slide, that might be interference, too.

Okay, I'm sorry for being a jackass about it, but I am just trying to show why I think the rule and the theory behind it is a bad one.

What is the difference between "about to receive" and "in the immediate act"? I don't want to see any fielder get ran over, but if they don't have the ball they shouldn't be in the basepath. Brian

I'll let someone else address your question, but I just want to give a quick reminder that even when obstruction occurs, malacious contact would not be acceptable.

I can't comment on how POEs might address the change of deleting "about to receive," but I do want to reinforce what Dan just wrote... regardless of whether the fielder was obstructing, malicious crashing into the fielder is USC, and in the case play added last year, is an OUT.

Which reminds me, Mike, is that case play (10.8-1) going to be codified in a rule this year?

Thanks, Mike.
My suggestions would be making more of the POE into actual rules, putting the CR rule in with lineups/subs instead of baserunning and providing cases to conform to rules, especially changes.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CecilOne

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA Quote: Another change is to allow the runner to leave the base in FP when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand OR "when the pivot foot leaves the pitching plate on the delivery." The reason offered was that different pitching styles proved to be advantageous to some teams (?) So what, isn't sports about finding advantages? Doesn't this imply that it's a lead in to eventually eliminating the requirement that pitchers push off only from the pitching plate?

After reading Andy's explanation from the ASA National Staff, I am beginning to warm to this rule change. Clearly, (IMO) something needs to be done to address leaps, crow hops, etc.

Considering the momentum of established practice in the umpire community (including getting assigned games at the upper levels), perhaps ASA concluded that attacking it head-on with trying to place greater emphasis on enforcement of the rules as written would not get very far. In that light, this is a very creative approach. LHIW.

If this change is adopted, the end result will most likely be (IMO, and assuming the rule is enforced as changed) coaches teaching proper defensive positioning. There remains the issue of what constitutes "possession" under this rule, and this is where a revised POE will help.

To address two issues raised.

Good rule, but does it belong in the ASA book or just in each tournament's rules. I usually call "take the field" right after the pre-game if I'm ready and then announce "the clock is starting NOW".

Remember, the book is for Championship Play and is already defined in ASA Rule 5.10. My offered change is to move the starting time from the "first pitch" to the end of the pre-game to try and eliminate all the last minute team meetings, instructions and warm-up.

The idea is to get the point across that the time they waste in the beginning of the game can come back to haunt them and hopefully, they will have their team ready to play instead of using 115 minutes to get in a game with a 100 minute limit.

Also, the elimination of the "about to receive" IS a safety issue as it will mean the defender needs to learn how to accept a throw and THEN move into the basepath which is the way it is supposed to be done to begin. It is my opinion that coaches who believe entering the basepath prior to receiving the ball are fools, especially at the youth level.

This is the rule at the international level and it works quite well.

It also eliminates the umpire's role of judging the position of the ball. Either it is in possesion of the fielder or it isn't.

Mike,

How about Case Play 10.8-1? Will there be a rule change to more clearly support that interpretation?

The players I see do not have international level skill. Also consider the throw pulling the fielder into the basepath, not coaching. Yes, "accept a throw and THEN move into the basepath" is the right way, but we already know that every coach won't get every fielder to do it right, although I certainly agree they should not be there deliberately.

Judgement is what we're about.

I wasn't aware rules were to be viewed as exclusive to a persons schedule. The players and coaches will never even see competitive ball if they don't learn to play the game in which they are participating. If that is their attitude toward the game, there really wouldn't be any need for an umpire.

And I don't care about the throw drawing the fielder into the basepath, that is still obstruction.

"allow the runner to leave the base in FP when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand OR "when the pivot foot leaves the pitching plate on the delivery."

"After reading Andy's explanation from the ASA National Staff, I am beginning to warm to this rule change. Clearly, (IMO) something needs to be done to address leaps, crow hops, etc."

This is crazy. I can't believe we are even discussing it.

Just how much time will elaspe between the time the pivot foot starts to drag and when the stride foot lands and the pitch is delivered? A fraction of a second? And a runner is going to gain two steps in that time? Maybe if they are shot out of that cannon the circus left behind, but I don't think they are doing it on their own.

I don't know what you guys do, but I try to judge when the pitcher's hand reaches the bottom of the arc, assuming that the ball will be released within a few milliseconds. Before the hand reaches that position I have to leave the pitcher to focus on the runner's tag foot - to asure that it does not break contact with the bag before I judged the pitcher's to be at the bottom. Now you are suggesting that the foot can leave the base while the pitcher's arm is somewhere on the down swing. (Worst case, just coming over the top.)

From the B position I cannot tell when the pitcher's pivot foot breaks contact with the plate. The motion is directly away from me. I would have to stay focused on the pitcher's foot and not sure how I am going to see the runner's foot.

Just for kicks, I stuck a pitching video in the VCR and tried to clock the time between the drag and release. Couldn't do it! To quick!

For what its worth, I am seeing more and more top level pitchers abandoning the leap 'n drag style. A lot of pitching coaches are pushing the basic "K" style. They are willing to give up a little speed for consistancy - thus accuracy. In a few years nobody will be having this argument about umpires unwilling to call the leap or crowhop.

WMB

No argument from me, I agree. I think the cause and affect is overstated, but apparently, someone is sold on this idea.

Come on, Mike, did you really think I meant my schedule rather than the vast majority of players who do not have international skill?

With the proposal, it will be obstruction if no ball possession; but it's not obstruction under the current rule if about to receive. My point was that we keep looking at this as where the coach teaches the player to be, without regard for player imperfections and imperfect throws. And we are discussing the aspects and side effects of a hypothetical rule change.

[Edited by CecilOne on Nov 7th, 2003 at 08:02 AM]

Maybe so... IMO, this rule is aimed at the upper levels of ball in Championship play with agressive base runners and a full umpiring crew.

The rule will have absolutely no effect in one umpire games, or even two man games with runners in certain positions.

But, the little extra umph from the pitchers, resulting the little hop and/or skip & second push off is done in game critical situations. Runners will be watching the foot instead of the hand with leap and drag style pitchers - umpires, too.

Will it matter? Maybe not, but I can guarantee you no amount of ranting by national staff on calling the leap / crow hop more vigorously at the 18U Gold level will overcome the coach's influence in getting assignments in HS and college ball. It would require a coordinated effort by NFHS, NCAA, State HS Associations, and ASA to effect a change.

The alternative would be to legalize what the pitchers are actually doing.

It is a creative approach and may be worth a shot.

I think it is just a mind game, myself.

Of course not, but my point is that just because they don't play at that level now, what are their chances of even thinking of reaching that point without learning how to play the game correctly? Where do you think the girls that play for world championships started their journey?

Remember, these rule are for Championship Play, but this particular one is meant to keep the defenders out of harms way while giving the runners a clear path to the base to which they are entitled. Sounds more of a safety concern on both sides of the field than anything else.

I've worked international ball and it works. The skill has nothing to do with it.

Tomorrow is the big day. The face masks/guards will undoubtedly be mandated beginning Jan 1, 2005.

Other probabilities:

Shorthanded rule will not change.

Flex will replace DEFO

An illegal runner will not be ruled out if discovered

The time the clock starts will remain at the moment the first pitch is delivered

FP delivery of push and drag will remain the same for all but men's FP

The proposal to change the call to "no pitch" when a batter is completely out of the front of the batter's box is hit by the pitch will be rejected

A proposed change to allow the runner to leave the base when the pitcher's foot loses contact with the pitcher's plate or release has been withdrawn

The words "or not about to receive a thrown ball" concerning obstruction will be approved

The rule reinstating an "interference" call for a BR running to 1B when not entitled will be rejected.

Remember, these are only observations drawn from the recommendations of the committees. It does not mean they will not be resurrected and/or changed on the floor during the general council meeting.

Without going back and searching the entire thread, I don't remember these proposals being discussed before.

If memory serves, an illegal runner is DQed but not declared out, so presumably there was a proposal to change this to an out?

On #2, were there proposals to change the pitching motion? I remember the one about runners leaving & the pitcher's pivot foot, but I don't recall a proposal to change the motion per se.

#3 is also new to me.

All-in-all, I think it has been great to have Mike give us insider updates from the conference.

Thanks a bunch, Mike! http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0...smiley-033.gif