Jim Easton recused himself from all votes involving sports for which his company sells equipment, not just softball.....last year, all ASA balls used for championship play were out of spec. Some manufacturers were just stamping their balls with the ASA .44, 375 logo even though they did not change the specs....one of the proposed rule changes requires the UIC for a JO "B" National to carry a radar gun and periodically check the pitcher's speed to make sure the "B" pitchers aren't throwing the ball too fast....hey, I'm just reporting, this wasn't one of mine.

Other rule change proposals include:

The return of the 1-1 count for all SP with no courtesy foul, changing the 10U rules to include a runner to score anytime the BR was awarded 1B with the bases loaded, relieving the BR of possible INT on a U3K unless intentional, cleaning up the U3K with two outs (again).

There will be approximately 70 rule changes proposed, but many are duplications, so it's not that big a deal.

NO 1-1 count! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Trust me, it will add offense to the game.

Even some of the biggest critics on the NUS over the past few years have started to swing on this issue. The players expect it. It urges them to swing the bat more frequently thus putting the ball into play more often which in turn creates more offensive and defensive opportunities throughout the game.

I've played and umpired for years and I think it speeds up the game considerably. I personally don't like to hit with 2 strikes on me and no coutesy foul so the first one that's close to a strike and I'm swinging.

But that's the misconception of many council members. It is not a speed-up rule. Quite often, the games are about the same time, but more runs are scored within that period.

We just want to get the $300 bats off the batter's shoulders.

Huh ?
 

"B" status is not determined by "talent" level. Last time I checked with A, B, or C levels in Fastpitch softball the talent level never came to the table it was weather or not the team was "selected", "regional all-star team" or a "local" all-STAR team. True or False? Any chance that the individual that recommended this rule had his daughters team get beaten this past summer by a really "fast" pitcher in a "B" level game? Ok it has been awhile since I did any 10 & Under but I have to ask......When bases were loaded in the past and the BR walked or was awarded first base....did the runner that was at third just sorta....disappear?

Re: Huh ?
 

Really don't think anyone needs to worry about this one passing.

Re: Huh ?
 

<i><b>"Ok it has been awhile since I did any 10 & Under but I have to ask......When bases were loaded in the past and the BR walked or was awarded first base....did the runner that was at third just sorta....disappear?"</b></i>

The current ASA rule (#8-4-H) for 10U reads:

<i>"Runners can only score on:

a) a batted ball,

b) a base on balls or hit batter with the bases full, or,

c) on an awarded base when the ball goes:

1) out of play, or,

2) on an illegal pitch."</i>

Specifically reading (b) above, it does say that runners can <b>ONLY</b> score in two situations with the bases full.

Can you think of another rule that awards the batter first base, which isn't covered here? I can think of at least one.

The proposed rule change- or, really more like a rule "re-wording"- would cover the other cicumstances where a batter being awarded first would force in run.

Lets Count Together :
 

The current ASA rule (#8-4-H) for 10U reads:

<i>"Runners can only score on:

a) a batted ball (1st Situation),

b) a base on balls (2nd Situation)or hit batter with the bases full (3rd Situation), or,

c) on an awarded base when the ball goes:

1) out of play (4th Situation), or,

2) on an illegal pitch (5th Situation)."</i>

Specifically reading (b) above, it does say that runners can <b>ONLY</b> score in two situations (2,???)with the bases full.

Can you think of another rule that awards the batter first base, which isn't covered here? I can think of at least one. Catchers Obstruction( opps, interference I mean).
The proposed rule change- or, really more like a rule "re-wording"- would cover the other cicumstances where a batter being awarded first would force in run. [/B][/QUOTE] I agree it's a re-wording. I just was wondering what happens to the runner as it is written. Another example that (1) coaches are probally trying to take advantage of a "wording" issue and we are trying to "babysit" most of these same coaches by making the "wording" fool-proof. It isn't going to happen.

[Edited by Bandit on Oct 12th, 2005 at 02:26 PM]

I don't know when, where, or if, the wording of the POE's gets reviewed, but I sure hope they took out that silly statement in the POE that a fielder blocking the base without the ball was obstruction.

Bandit - what happens is we send her home. Coaches don't know this is written wrong in the book.

If one did, we'd have to God-Rule her home, as this would be "a situation not covered by the rules".

Have I been out of touch ?
 

Ok, guys I know that I have been out of touch for awhile and that I have probally missed a bunch and if I need to go back and review some old posts just let me know....but.....Dakota....are we being a little bit sarcastic...or am I missing something in your statement in it's rawest form "fielder blocking the base without the ball was obstruction". A fielder blocking the base WITHOUT the ball IS obstruction. In high school & ASA......"must have possesion". In NCAA...."about to receive". What am I missing ?

Re: Lets Count Together :
 

I agree it's a re-wording. I just was wondering what happens to the runner as it is written. Another example that (1) coaches are probally trying to take advantage of a "wording" issue and we are trying to "babysit" most of these same coaches by making the "wording" fool-proof. It isn't going to happen.

[Edited by Bandit on Oct 12th, 2005 at 02:26 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

#1. It IS catcher's obstruction
#2. This rule change was submitted because the previous wording restricted the advancement as it used the word "only" which would definitely cause consternation among some and I can see an umpire saying, "hey, your right!" and make the batter bat again.

I submitted this change as a direct result of discussion on this board.

Bandit - a fielder in the basepath without the ball.. BY ITSELF is not obstruction.

A fielder in the basepath without the ball THAT HINDERS OR ALTERS THE PATH OF THE RUNNER is obstruction.

The POE ignores this VERY important piece of the puzzle, and leads people who read it (especially assistant coaches who don't actually look at the rule) to believe that the runner's actions are irrelevant to the case (or, in one case I had to deal with - the EXISTENCE of a runner is irrelevant - the guy insisted that this POE meant that fielders could not be in the basepaths AT ALL).

Re: Have I been out of touch ?
 

No, it isn't... and I wasn't being sarcastic. mcrowder explained it.

See also my editorial here. (Sorry, guys, the site has not been updated in awhile.)

For a good example of the confusion this causes, see the ongoing discussion on the eteamz rules board (look for Sam).

Thank You
 

Thank You, very good points.

Mike writes:

<i><b>#1. It IS catcher's obstruction
#2. This rule change was submitted because the previous wording restricted the advancement as it used the word "only" which would definitely cause consternation among some and I can see an umpire saying, "hey, your right!" and make the batter bat again.

I submitted this change as a direct result of discussion on this board.</b></i>

That was me that brought this up, not here, but on another board.

See it here: http://eteamz.active.com/fastpitch/b...cfm?id=1397645

At the time, you said you would follow-up. Glad to see that you did! Cool!

Now, if we can only have this rule renamed as "The Bret Rule"...