Proposed ASA Changes for FP & General Rules

[IRISHMAFIA]

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

JO Ball

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

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 (?)

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.)

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:

Remove "about to receive" from rules governing obstruction.

Make life easier for umpires and conforms to international rules.

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

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.

[Skahtboi]

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

JO Ball

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.

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...

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?

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.

[Andy]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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.

[Dakota]

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

JO Ball

This was a no-brainer

The "ASA is your mother" move continues on its relentless path...

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

Heavens, we can't have one team having an advantage!

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

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

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

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

Other changes affecting all disciplines:

Make life easier for umpires and conforms to international rules.

Yeah!!!!

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

Good proposal. Thanks, Mike!

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

[chuck chopper]

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.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by chuck chopper
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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

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?

[greymule]

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.

[Steve M]

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

[WestMichBlue]

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


YES ! !

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

WMB

[Dakota]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
"Remove "about to receive" from rules governing obstruction."


YES ! !

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

WMB

You did drop a subtle hint or two!

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by chuck chopper
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.

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.

[bethsdad]

Originally posted by greymule
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.

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

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by bethsdad
I don't want to see any fielder get ran over, but...

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.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by SC Ump

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?