I'm president of an ASA-affiliated, recreational girls' fastpitch league (http://abgsl.org) that uses a batting rule modification at 10U: after four balls against a girl pitcher, the batter completes the at-bat (maintaining strike count) against a spring-loaded pitching machine with an adult operator. As the batting machine is a permanent fixture in the field (throwing from 40' while the girls throw from 35'), we have a number of accompanying rules modifications (no steals of second, e.g.) to avoid situations where the machine is likely to be directly in the path of play.
We have used this approach for several years and are quite happy with it; it keeps play lively even with beginning pitchers, and the no-steal-second rule keeps the middle infield play an important part of the game. However, we go back and forth on how to treat the machine and the operator with respect to incidental interference with batted and thrown balls. (Mostly batted balls, as it's a very rare occurence, now that we don't have steals of second, for a thrown ball to hit the machine.) One school of thought is to treat the machine (and operator) as an obstruction: a batted or thrown ball that hits it is dead and treated as a no-pitch. (This is simple but can be very frustrating - most of the balls that hit the machine are well struck and they are often barely deflected.) Another is to treat it more as part of the playing field: balls that hit the machine are in play and fair. (This is more satisfying but much harder to officiate.)
We have great respect for the expertise and experience we see on this forum, and would appreciate any thoughts senior members might have about how to handle this situation, both from the point of view of keeping the ball live and keeping the call understandable. We are hoping you might have an approach that has eluded us that blends those two considerations in a better way. Thanks in advance for any help!
Dan Brotsky
|
Tue Apr 05, 2005, 12:40am
Threaded Mode
