Why was the ASA adv 4th out rule changed?

[Dakota]

Does anyone know? There must have been some rationale to requiring that the 4th out can only be on a runner who has scored, instead of the broader requirement that it remove a run from the board.

Unfortunately, I don't have any documentation on the rules changes for 2003, so I don't know if the change was commented on at the time.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Does anyone know? There must have been some rationale to requiring that the 4th out can only be on a runner who has scored, instead of the broader requirement that it remove a run from the board.

Unfortunately, I don't have any documentation on the rules changes for 2003, so I don't know if the change was commented on at the time.

I do. There was no proposed change presented at the 2002 NC involving the "fourth out appeal". There is no indication of such a change in the front of the 2003 book, yet the change is in Rule 5.

And to be honest with you, I missed it the change.

[noobie]

I don't have an ASA rule book earlier than 2005. The '05-'06 rule books both say, in 5-C:

No run shall be scored if a "fourth out" is the result of an appeal of a base missed or left to(o) soon on a runner who has scored.

Does this rule completely exclude all other 4th out possibilities? I don't see the word "only", which prompts me to ask the question. Is this what the Rules Committee really intended?? (which is what I think Dakota was asking originally ... excellent question)

It seems to me that the 4th out has many more possibilities than this, and there's little guidance what to do. But then again, I'm probably overthinking it.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by noobie

Does this rule completely exclude all other 4th out possibilities? I don't see the word "only", which prompts me to ask the question. Is this what the Rules Committee really intended??

Apparently so, since they changed the case play to reflect the rule change.

I just don't understand the rationale behind the change. It is even more mystifying given the apparent back-door nature of the change (was not voted on at the national convention, etc.).

I wonder if it was somebody's pet change who was involved in the writing / editing of the rule book, and they just put it in. If so, that would not appear to have followed the process ASA has in place for changing the playing rules.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Apparently so, since they changed the case play to reflect the rule change.

I just don't understand the rationale behind the change. It is even more mystifying given the apparent back-door nature of the change (was not voted on at the national convention, etc.).

I wonder if it was somebody's pet change who was involved in the writing / editing of the rule book, and they just put it in. If so, that would not appear to have followed the process ASA has in place for changing the playing rules.

It wasn't necessarily a "back door" change, sometimes they screw up and just don't get something in. Remember, it took two-years to get the U3K with 2 outs and 1B unoccupied to be corrected in the book.

This may have been done prior to 2002 and just not hit the book, that documentation I do not have. Also, a "fourth-out" appeal is more of a permissive interpretation than a rule and maybe that is how it was handled.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Also, a "fourth-out" appeal is more of a permissive interpretation than a rule and maybe that is how it was handled.

From my sources, BINGO!!

[BretMan]

Speaking of "changes", I ran across a couple of them last week.

Questions came up about two different subjects and, coincidentally, both of these involved "undocumented" (I suppose "editorial") changes to the 2006 ASA rules.

Sometimes I have my old 2005 ASA book with me when away from home. The 2006 book is usually either next to my home computer or in my gear bag at the field. If I check something in my 2005 book, I double-check with the 2006 book when I get the chance.

The first involved the definition of a "blocked ball". The 2005 definition says that a blocked ball is either a "batted or thrown" ball. The 2006 definition has slipped in a "pitched ball", without a noted rule change or comment.

The other change involved a hit batter.

The 2005 rule (8-1-F) had a note that "it does not matter if the ball strikes the ground before hitting the batter".

This sentence has been removed for 2006. Of course, the rule is the same, but since this comes up fairly often it was nice to have that black-and-white disclaimer to head off any arguments.

In the same rule, the notation that "the hands are not to be considered a part of the bat" has been retained. In lower level play, I seem to get about an equal number of questions about either of those points on hit batters. Funny that one "myth" is still debunked, while the other clarifying point has been removed!