College game needs more offense??

[Igotthetag]

I've been lurking and observing for awhile but this issue just kind of gets me going...

Don't you think that the coaches of DDs through the years have compromised in their expectations and not taught them to develop their hitting skills? Rather, they have given in to "conventional wisdom" and bowed down to the "slapper gods" and accepted that the young lady can't be expected to hit a ball moving that fast in that many directions because "she's a girl". There are enough women out there hitting the ball where it's pitched and hitting it well for me to conclude that not as much time is spent coaching hitting in softball development programs as is spent in the boys' programs. Just a pet peeve of mine.

Duane Jones

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally posted by bkbjones
Not trying to be argumentative or belittling, so please don't take it that way...

1. I love the fastpitch game.

2. IMHO, move the PP back to 43 for Gold, and change the college rule to the same as men's (keep your toe pointing somewhat down, and please have contact with the PP at some point between when the catcher throws you the ball and when you pitch it back toward said catcher).

3. I would almost rather work the bases than the plate (I said ALMOST) in a good FP game, because I know every call I make will be crucial, and I trust my judgement.

In my opinion, moving the PP back for Gold alone would probably kill Gold in many parts of the country, and put a hurting on 18A. All tournaments would be required to have seperate brackets, and fields for Gold (you don't think they would let play on a field with a 40' plate in front of them, do you?); many "open" tournaments rely on mixing 18A and Gold to make good brackets, and the 18A teams want to play against Gold teams for the quality experience.

The pitchers would have concerns with changing distances on their breaking pitches, of course; many college pitchers who are age eligible to return are ineffective in 18A and Gold, since their pitches are hit before they break. It would also make a concern with high school competition, since the players would be mixed in their "familiar" distances.

It seems to me that any decision to move the PP, to be effective and consistent for the players, must be NCAA only; if youth ball needs to cahnge, all ages from at least 14U up should move and NFHS must be on board with the change, as well. Since ASA is the NGB for softball in the US, either change would also likely need to be coordinated with ISF, as well.

I do not personally subscribe to the "it isn't enforced, so take it out of the rules" argument. The rules are clear enough in my mind what constitutes an illegal leap, and what constitutes an illegal crow hop. At every level of JO, NFHS, and NCAA, the obvious calls should be enforced. Coaches and pitchers need to be told as an absolute point of enphasis that these calls will be made, and that there is no conversation or discussion to be accepted on these calls. In the past year, the entire softball world learned how obstruction would be enforced; and it worked. By next year, it will be less discussed, and a matter of fact call; more importantly, there is less obstruction as a result of actual enforcement. Illegal pitching could be curtailed in the same way, if the powers that be really wanted it to happen.

Several years ago, ISF started enforcing a full 2 second touch and pause on pitchers. There was momentary complaint, then all the pitchers complied. No difference on leaping and crow hopping; if it was mandated to be enforced, and umpire evaluations were affected if you didn't make the call (right now, umpires don't want to make the coaches unhappy to lose the assignments), it would change.

As a final opinion, I don't really believe these issues give the pitchers any great advantage; most coaches complain about the opposing pitchers to get in their head, or to force them to think about something else, not because a huge advantage is gained on a borderline condition. A full out leap or crow hop is called; it is the situations with "no advantage" that are mostly ignored.

[Dakota]

Two responses to your post, Atl...

1) With the exception of HS varsity and JV fields, most SB fields here are multi-use. They already cope with pitching plates ranging from 35' to 53'. I've even done tournaments where the field changed from 10U to 12U and back all on Saturday. If the field is set up for it, it is not that big of a deal. (BTW, my biggest issue with multi-use fields is not the PP, it is the fence distance.)

2) Your ISF example don't cut no ice as a comparison to the NCAA. Ask some of the NCAA umpires who calls the shots on rule enforcement in Div 1 college. It is not the umpires. If the powers-that-be (i.e. coaches) don't want the rule enforced, it won't be. If it is not going to be enforced, take it out. The leap clearly is not being enforced most of the time. Neither is the second push off. Neither is the 24" width. Adjust the book to what will be called. Quit pretending. JMO.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally posted by Dakota
Two responses to your post, Atl...

1) With the exception of HS varsity and JV fields, most SB fields here are multi-use. They already cope with pitching plates ranging from 35' to 53'. I've even done tournaments where the field changed from 10U to 12U and back all on Saturday. If the field is set up for it, it is not that big of a deal. (BTW, my biggest issue with multi-use fields is not the PP, it is the fence distance.)

2) Your ISF example don't cut no ice as a comparison to the NCAA. Ask some of the NCAA umpires who calls the shots on rule enforcement in Div 1 college. It is not the umpires. If the powers-that-be (i.e. coaches) don't want the rule enforced, it won't be. If it is not going to be enforced, take it out. The leap clearly is not being enforced most of the time. Neither is the second push off. Neither is the 24" width. Adjust the book to what will be called. Quit pretending. JMO.

In the second point, I don't see the "who the powers-that-be are" as an issue. As an NCAA D1 umpire, I am well aware of your point, just not your solution. NCAA rules committee decided to clean up obstruction, and did it; they didn't eliminate the "about to receive", but the obstruction warnings and subsequent base awards diminished from start to end of the schedule. Coaches realized it was being enforced, and taught revised defense.

I do agree with eliminating the 24" width rule; and eliminating batting out of the box for slappers and bunters. Just make them start in the box, and only call if they step on home plate (if even then). But not because it isn't called, but because it really can't be effectively called. It is not humanly possible to watch a 60+ mph pitch (and every pitcher in every game was over 60) travel less than 43' (depending on the release point), track that pitch to a ball or strike call, and look at either the pitcher's landing foot location or where the batter's foot is at the moment of contact. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous, and the rules that can't be enforced should be eliminated.

But that is different from the rules that selectively aren't enforced, not because they can't be. There are umpires in position to judge leaping and replanting; they just don't (for, you name the reason, just don't ask Sam or Ron in Omaha). We need the support and empowerment to change the game, and then we could.