Proposed ASA Rule Changes

[IRISHMAFIA]

Some proposed ASA rule changes of which I am aware:

Class D SP - End of half-inning on each HR.

My view: Drastic, but apparently at this years D's, some teams excess HRs were in double-digits per game.

If the automatic out for a team playing shorthanded is missed, it may be still be ruled as an out anytime during that half-inning

Two proposals here: Move SP to a 3-2 count or keep a 4-3 count with the batter assuming a 1-1 count and a free foul.

My view: Second option may satisfy traditionalist, and most teams are playing with this now at most tournaments and league games

SP stealing - Allow the pitcher to receive the ball anywhere in the infield to end play and eliminate the requirement that all runners be moving for a steal to be valid.

My view: Apparently, many teams and umpires had a hard time understanding this rule, so this will make it a little simpler for all

Obstruction - Once a runner safely obtains the base to which they were protected, if they choose to leave the base during a subsequent play on another runner, they are now in jeopardy even if between the two bases where the original obstruction occurred.

My view: I believe the second half of the rule change should be scratched and not require a sub. play on another runner

Look Back - The LBR will be in effect for all runners once the pitcher receives and holds the ball in the circle, but not for the BR until they reach 1B.

My view: Make it one or the other. Too much going on for the umpires in this situation.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Obstruction - Once a runner safely obtains the base to which they were protected, if they choose to leave the base during a subsequent play on another runner, they are now in jeopardy even if between the two bases where the original obstruction occurred.

My view: I believe the second half of the rule change should be scratched and not require a sub. play on another runner

Am I understand you correctly - you favor dropping the protection "between the bases" altogether and just go with protection to the base the runner would have achieved?

If so, why?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

Am I understand you correctly - you favor dropping the protection "between the bases" altogether and just go with protection to the base the runner would have achieved?

If so, why?

No. I favor that if you are going to drop the obstruction once a runner reaches the base to which they are protected, do it all the time, not just when there is a subsequent play on another runner.

As it stands, a runner could get hung up in a rundown between 1st & 2nd, get back to 1B (which in the scenario is the base you are protecting the runner) and if the ball rolls away a little bit, the runner, knowing they cannot be put out between the bases can take off for 2B again with never being in jeopardy.

[whiskers_ump]

Mike:



No. I favor that if you are going to drop the obstruction once a runner reaches the base to which they are protected, do it all the time, not just when there is a subsequent play on another runner.

As it stands, a runner could get hung up in a rundown between 1st & 2nd, get back to 1B (which in the scenario is the base you are protecting the runner) and if the ball rolls away a little bit, the runner, knowing they cannot be put out between the bases can take off for 2B again with never being in jeopardy.

I like this thinking. As most may remember several months ago I posted
just this scenario and all said runner was protected. I did not like
it, but by the reading of the present rule, it was so. I just never
could agree with this (still don't) because she reattained the base,
coach saw the obstruction call and sent her on to 2B, she is thrown
out and you have to send her back to 1B. Hope they adjust the rule
to something like Mike is thinking.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
I favor that if you are going to drop the obstruction once a runner reaches the base to which they are protected, do it all the time, not just when there is a subsequent play on another runner.

Thanks for clarifying. I could go along with this, but ...

I am in general not favorable toward any "weakening" of the obstruction rule - it is weak enough already in dealing with coached obstruction. Giving the offense a "free try" between the bases does violate the "keep both sides whole" aspect of the rule, but if the defense is intentionally obstructing (which they do a lot), they have no righteous claim to be kept whole IMO.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
Mike:



No. I favor that if you are going to drop the obstruction once a runner reaches the base to which they are protected, do it all the time, not just when there is a subsequent play on another runner.

As it stands, a runner could get hung up in a rundown between 1st & 2nd, get back to 1B (which in the scenario is the base you are protecting the runner) and if the ball rolls away a little bit, the runner, knowing they cannot be put out between the bases can take off for 2B again with never being in jeopardy.

I like this thinking. As most may remember several months ago I posted
just this scenario and all said runner was protected. I did not like
it, but by the reading of the present rule, it was so. I just never
could agree with this (still don't) because she reattained the base,
coach saw the obstruction call and sent her on to 2B, she is thrown
out and you have to send her back to 1B. Hope they adjust the rule
to something like Mike is thinking.

I already tried to sway one of the NUS members. I'll try again in Mobile.

[whiskers_ump]

Thank you, Mike....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
Thank you, Mike....

Glen,

Are you under the impression that someone on this board is going blind?

[whiskers_ump]

Well Mike,

we are umpires and get that call (pun) all the time.