The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 10, 2005, 01:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,560
Should I be on the look-out for anyone in Tucson this week?
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 10, 2005, 07:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 242
Billy Monk - If you see him, run the other way
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 10, 2005, 10:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,560
Quote:
Originally posted by DNTXUM P
Billy Monk - If you see him, run the other way
Nay, Billy's okay.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 11, 2005, 09:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,362
Quote:
Originally posted by DNTXUM P
Billy Monk - If you see him, run the other way
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 11, 2005, 08:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 242
You liked that did you, Scott?

Mike, just kidding, he is my UIC in Dallas. Get him a beer for me.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 14, 2005, 09:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 4,362
By the way, Larry, I never did make it over to Craig Ranch this weekend. I had a late game on Friday, went home and got a couple of hours sleep, and then worked all day Saturday and had the late game again that night. How did things go over there?
__________________
Scott


It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 14, 2005, 08:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 242
Super. Billy Peo... tossed the coach in the first game Sat morning then forefitted the game. Got things off to a rousing start.

Other than that, things went well. One field finished @ 1:30 am Sat morning because of several extra inning ballgames Friday night.

Usual complaining but nothing out of the ordinary. Anything I can pick up for you in SoCal this weekend. Would you like a SoCal umpires cap? They look pretty cool with palm trees, etc.

Larry
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 14, 2005, 11:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,560
REMEMBER, these have only gone through some committees and are not yet officially approved or rejected. Do not read anything into this information as that is all it is at this point in time!!! Report is a summarization, not the exact wording of the rule or proposal.

Some of the interesting proposed rule changes and how they have faired in committee:


Move adult SP bases to 70’ and PP to 53’ – rejected by at least three committees.

Batter’s box for 16” game changed to 4 x 8 feet. – so far, positive response from committees.

Senior SP change ball specs back to 525 compression – rejected by at least three committees.

Glove or Mitt may be worn by all defensive players – approved by at least three committees.

Delete the restriction on numbers involving “0”. IOW, 3 and 03 or 0 and 00 are two different numbers – approved by at least two committees.

Remove “which is judged by the umpire to be dangerous” from the “jewelry rule”. IOW, no jewelry is allowed for any player, PERIOD! – has been rejected by at least two committees.

(Pending the removal of the Major division) Eliminate the EP from Men’s A SP. IOW,
all players in batting order must play defense – rejected by at least two committees.

New rule involving DQ or ejected “participant". This participant must leave the grounds or the game is forfeited. Please note, the term “grounds” is already in the existing rule and does NOT endorse forcing such a coach/player to actually leave the property, but to remain away from that field and other participants involved in the same game. It is not stating that a youth player be sent to the parking lot or other remote area without adult supervision – so far approved by at least four committees.

Act of USC by any BR or R shall result in that player being ruled out and ejected. Ball is immediately dead, runner returned to base occupied at the TOP – rejected by at least three committees.

All changes (3) suggesting the inning end on a HR whether the HR is the first of the inning, game, second of the game, second of the inning - rejected by at least two committees.

Change to restrict pitching speeds of each age level of championship FP “B” play - rejected by at least two committees.

Men’s Senior SP initiating the use of a mat for the strike zone – rejected by at least three committees.

Adult SP only (excluding Senior) the batter will enter the batter’s box with the count of 1-ball & 1-strike allowing one courtesy foul – rejected by at least two committees prior to the amendment allowing the courtesy foul.

When a pitched ball, in the umpire’s judgment, is prevented from entering the strike zone by any actions of the batter other than hitting the ball with the bat results in a dead-ball strike – approved by at least two committees.

(SP only) Once the batter has taken their position in the batter’s box, their back foot must remain in the position until the bat impacts the ball – rejected by at least three committees.

REMEMBER, these have only gone through some committees and are not yet officially approved or rejected. Do not read anything into this information as that is all it is at this point in time!!! Report is a summarization, not the exact wording of the rule or proposal.



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Nov 14th, 2005 at 11:44 PM]
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 15, 2005, 11:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
REMEMBER, these have only gone through some committees and are not yet officially approved or rejected. Do not read anything into this information as that is all it is at this point in time!!! Report is a summarization, not the exact wording of the rule or proposal.
OK, but I still can't resist some comments / opinions.
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Glove or Mitt may be worn by all defensive players – approved by at least three committees.
Good. Avoids unnecessary enforcement issues.
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
3 and 03 or 0 and 00 are two different numbers – approved by at least two committees.
Ummm... that's four different numbers!
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Remove “which is judged by the umpire to be dangerous” from the “jewelry rule”. IOW, no jewelry is allowed for any player, PERIOD! – has been rejected by at least two committees.
Good. Even better would be to remove the rule altogether, put it in the code, and make it exclusively the coach's responsibility.
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
New rule involving DQ or ejected “participant". This participant must leave the grounds or the game is forfeited. Please note, the term “grounds” is already in the existing rule and does NOT endorse forcing such a coach/player to actually leave the property, but to remain away from that field and other participants involved in the same game. It is not stating that a youth player be sent to the parking lot or other remote area without adult supervision – so far approved by at least four committees.
I don't even understand the rationale for this rule. Is this mandating leaving the grounds, or broadening the class of individuals that may be ejected (i.e. "participant")?
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Act of USC by any BR or R shall result in that player being ruled out and ejected. Ball is immediately dead, runner returned to base occupied at the TOP – rejected by at least three committees.
Does this mean the death of the case play? Or, is there a difference perceived between "mere" USC and "flagrant misconduct"?
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Change to restrict pitching speeds of each age level of championship FP “B” play - rejected by at least two committees.
The march of the flat earth society (level playing field division). Why mandate mediocrity?
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
When a pitched ball, in the umpire’s judgment, is prevented from entering the strike zone by any actions of the batter other than hitting the ball with the bat results in a dead-ball strike – approved by at least two committees.
I would hope there would be a significant POE written if this is approved. Otherwise, there will be rampant confusion among the coaches and umpires (especially at the lower levels of the game) regarding what "prevented from entering the strike zone" means. Even though it should be obvious, trust me, it won't be.
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
REMEMBER, these have only gone through some committees and are not yet officially approved or rejected. Do not read anything into this information as that is all it is at this point in time!!! Report is a summarization, not the exact wording of the rule or proposal.
Even MY attention span isn't that short, Mike!
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 15, 2005, 11:46am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,560
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dakota
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
New rule involving DQ or ejected “participant". This participant must leave the grounds or the game is forfeited. Please note, the term “grounds” is already in the existing rule and does NOT endorse forcing such a coach/player to actually leave the property, but to remain away from that field and other participants involved in the same game. It is not stating that a youth player be sent to the parking lot or other remote area without adult supervision – so far approved by at least four committees.
Quote:
I don't even understand the rationale for this rule. Is this mandating leaving the grounds, or broadening the class of individuals that may be ejected (i.e. "participant")
As the rule presently stands, a coach, DQ or ejected, may still be in the dugout which means they can still coach. Sort of defeats the purpose of the DQ or ejection.

I think it needs to be all encompassing or the umpire may run into a semantical battle of arguments and protests. Point is to not do anything to get DQ or ejected.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Nov 15th, 2005 at 11:48 AM]
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 15, 2005, 06:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,810
Mike, I notice you didn't mention the issue of 43' Pitching plate for JO, in light of ISF Juniors rule. Is that not an agenda item? If no one proposed it (which hardly seems likely), has anyone suggested a suspension of rules motion, or some other means to get it on the floor for consideration?

If so, is there any discussion of the age of implementation? I am thinking from 14U, at least, would be most appropriate, to better work together with NFHS.

BTW, not sure I let you know that I wouldn't attend this year. The changes here resulting from consolidating Atlanta into Georgia left me an odd man out.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 16, 2005, 10:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by AtlUmpSteve
If so, is there any discussion of the age of implementation? I am thinking from 14U, at least, would be most appropriate, to better work together with NFHS.
JO pitchers would be put through a chaotic time, with 10U at 35', 12U at 40', and then 14U at 43'. This needs to be considered, too. I would imagine these are the critical years (12U - 14U) for pitchers to develop control, movement pitches, etc.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 16, 2005, 01:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,810
I don't disagree, Tom. The problem is that we can anticipate NFHS wanting to get in line with everyone else, at some point, and I see a problem if the rule isn't implemented from 14U up, since most freshmen are 14U.

I also would consider eliminating the 35' distance completely, and have 10U pitch from 40' along with 12U, but I'm not confident that is workable at all at a rec level. For the real 10U A travel teams, I think it is doable, but the others???? Scary night at the ball park; even more of a walkathon than ever before.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 17, 2005, 12:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
At the rec and "B" level of 10U, moving the pitcher's plate back would not be a good idea, IMO.

Unfortunately for ASA, they are the only softball sanctioning organization that needs to recognize both international play and 10U - 12U play (actually, I don't know how young ISF "junior" play is, but I am assuming we are talking about high school age by and large).

ASA is in a tough spot if both NFHS and ISF go with 43'.

If it was only an ISF issue, they could make the change at 16U and up (or perhaps even 18U and up). But NFHS for sure covers 16U, and as you have observed, part of 14U.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 17, 2005, 02:45pm
SRW SRW is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 1,342
From Spy

See the full article here

***

ASA COUNCIL FINAL

As their first order of business at their annual business session (November 17), ASA delegates approved rejected a number of changes to playing rules.


Playing Rules

Effective 2006, the pitching distance for ASA Gold is extended to 43 feet. SPY note: the sponsors said the change would allow pitchers to acclimate to the college standard, and enable college coaches to evaluate pitchers at the additional distance. SPY notes that the change also conforms to the recent decision by ISF to adopt a 43 ft distance. The Council specifically rejected a proposal to extend the distance for 18U.

Effective 2006, foul tip is redefined to read: A batted ball that goes sharply and directly from the bat to the catcher’s hands(s) or glove/mitt and is legally caught by the catcher.

Effective 2006, “flex” is defined: The player whom is initially listed in the 10th spot on the line-up card may play any defensive position, and may enter the game on offense only in the Designated Player”s (DP) batting position. The Council rejected an amendment which would have allowed 12 players on JO line-ups including 2 “extra players” who would bat and a “flex” player who would only play defense.

Effective 2006, “designated player” is defined: The player who is initially on the line-up card in the team’s batting order but not in the defensive lineup.

Effective 2006, the rules permit all defensive players to use either a glove or mitt.

Effective 2006, 0, 00, 3, and 03 are considered different numbers.

Effective 2006, the double-base rule is clarified: Whenever a play is being made by an infielder on a batter-runner, the defense must use the white portion and the batter-runner the colored portion. The batter-runner is out when there is a play being made at 1st base and the batter-runner touches only the white, providing the defense appeals prior to the batter-runner returning to the first base. Once the runner returns to the base, no appeal can be made. The Council also approved a motion that “the double-base rule should apply whenever the batter-runner is advancing to 1st base, regardless of where the ball is hit to the infield or outfield.” A third motion allows the batter-runner to touch either white or colored on an extra-base hit or balls hit to the outfield. Still another approved motion allows a base runner to tag up on a fly ball using either white or colored portion. Also approved: letting the base runner return to the white or colored portion on an attempted pickoff play.


The Council rejected an amendment which would have eliminated chin straps. An amendment which would have excluded religious medals from the definition of jewelry was withdrawn. The Council rejected a proposal to limit pitching in 18U and 16U “B” games to 53 mph (thankfully). Similarly, the Council rejected a proposal for “B” tournaments which would have required continuous batting of all players in attendance; no flex or DP, and all players must play defense for 2 innings unless a run-rule is in effect (an old rec ball requirement).


CODE

The Council restored two pool games to Gold and 18A – but, 18A and other Class A only, the pool games will be used to seed the bracket.

Gold, the amendment, effective 2006, reads:”…pool play providing each team with two additional games shall be used. Teams must participate in pool play to be eligible for the double-elimi8nation bracket. These games will be for recruitment purposes only.” A parallel amendment requires that the draw for the double-elimination bracket precede the draw for pool play, and for a redraw to ensure that teams do not face bracket opponents in pool play. Teams shall be protected n both the double elimination bracket and pool play as per existing rules.

Gold will continue to have 64 teams. Beginning in 2006, the two host berths are eliminated; a qualifying tournament in Oklahoma City Hall of Fame Stadium to award these two berths was approved. ASA officials indicated this tournament will occur in late July and will not conflict with any Sector tournaments.

An amendment moves Gold opening ceremonies to Sunday, with the tournament to conclude on Saturday.

Class A. The Council specifically agreed that the two pool games should seed the double elimination bracket, and rejected motions to delete the “qualifying” provisions.


The triple elimination bracket was specifically repealed for Gold and Class A.

A motion which would have deleted the requirement that Gold play in Oklahoma City every year was rejected.

The Council rejected several proposals which would have prohibited college players from participating in JO programs.

The Council rejected proposals which would have allowed Class A teams to pick up players from anywhere in their region (not just their association).


Still to come:

Elections
2006 Host City
Hall of Fame 2006
Restructuring of ASA Board of Directors
Report from ISF
__________________
We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1