2007 ASA Rule Changes

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Define a "PLAY" as : An attempt by a defensive player on a batted or thrown ball to retire a runner or a batter-runner. A pitch is not a play except as it relates to an appeal play"

Probably pass

May have already been stated, but this would take away the INT on the recent thread on F5 trying to touch a rolling batted ball in order to make it foul. I disagree with this as now the offense has the legal right to block the fielder from making a legitimate play.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Change JO pitching distance to 43' for: G16U, G18U (depends on which rule change you address)

Should pass

I support this rule to include 14-U

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Change the rule concerning a pitching or base distance discovered to be incorrect. The change is to when discovered, correct the error and revert back to the previous completed inning. If the first inning, restart the game.

This has to be because someone thought they were "cheated". I don't like the change and hope it does not survive committee

I do not support this rule. Each team has the right to pace off or measure the base distances and PP prior to the start of the game. If they elected to waive their right, then stick with the current rule.

Suppose the coach notices the wrong distance in the 2nd iinning but waits to report it until the 5th inning when the other team had a blowout inning against him?

This would create havoc with the lineup cards as restarting from the prior inning would have to include undo-ing all subs and charged conferences.

Nobody got cheated. They cheated themselves by not doing their own due diligence prior to the start of the game.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Change the batters box to 4' X 8'. In effect, adding a foot to the rear and outside of the box.

This was changed for 16" SP, so now it is being changed to, get this, "eliminate many conflicts concerning batters being out of the box. Bull$hit! This change was made in 16" to give the batter more room to run. I don't think regular SP softball needs to add space promoting running in the BB and allow the batter to provide more impetus to a batted ball already leaving the bat at an extremely high rate of speed.

This is not a good rule for FP. More low pitches will drop in the dirt in front of the catchers making them more difficult to block. This is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Use a strike mat for Senior softball
I hate the mat. It is not fair to the pitcher, short batter or the umpire and I don't care how old they are.

The only response that comes to mind here is "Depends" which might be readily availble in the dugouts

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Change the pitcher's glove restriction to include "not the color of the ball"
Should pass

Is this "in addition to", or a "replacement of", the existing rule regarding multi-color gloves, etc.?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Allow 10U Girls (FP & SP) to bat the bench as long as both teams bat the same number of players

I hope someone chokes on this one..

Especially if these are the Championship Rules...

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There are a multitude of changes eliminating the word "intentional" or "intentionally" when it pertains to interference.

The reason given was that the definition of "interference" in rule 1 does not mention "intention" so it shouldn't be part of the rules. I consider this a very dangerous change. This means that the runner from 1st to 2nd MUST go poof in a heartbeat or take one between the eyes and have the runner closest to home ruled out. Same thing with a deflected batted ball. The runner would be ruled out, intention or not. Same thing with the batter IN THE BOX. Don't care if the s/he is off balance, still in a follow through or whatever, if the catcher is hindered throwing to a base, INT is the call.

I do no support this rule change whatsover.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Under BR is out (8.2.D-H). The effect is changed to return all runners to the base occupied at the time of the pitch, not interference.

My issue with this is that other players which are not violating any rules is being punished. With D, which covers the BR leaving the field of play being ruled out. The player isn't violating any rule, just giving up on the play. As it pertains to the INT situations, this change is more punitive than necessary. The defense is already being given an out that was not definite at the time of the violation and the runners are no longer permitted to run.

I support this change. I disagree that the only player benefitting from INT is the one who comitted it. It could very well be the reason that permitted other base runners to advance to a base they would not have reached otherwise. Put the runners back to the base they occupied at the time of the pitch.

This will also require mechanics that do not exist. If you are watching the runner commit INT, then you must also make sure that it is spelled out in the umpire's manual, who is responsible for which runners. I see this as very complicated and difficult to call.

Your point about D - BR leaving the field of play is valid, but should be handled under a different EFFECT of EXCEPTION as it does not make sense in the current context.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Delete all the 10U baserunning restrictions. There is also a change deleting the rule for 10U A ball only

Florida is stating that the teams there will not play ASA because of this specific rule. I don't buy it, but I really don't care. BTW, the 10U I've seen will be a joke if this is dropped. Then again, I'm in DE and not any of the softball hubs.

Hate to say it, but Florida is not alone in what they state. The ASA 10-U program would benefit from removing the restrictions, especially for championship play. For crying out loud, we now have 10 y/o's throwing at 67 mph and damn near ready to go yard.

I would support this rule change for Championship play. Rec leagues and B-level events could invoke local rules as they do now.

[mcrowder]

My problem with the definition of play is that there will be people who imply that it is no longer interference on a runner if she contacts a fielder who is fielding a batted ball, and there is no chance for an out on BR. Was this the intent of the change?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

My problem with the definition of play is that there will be people who imply that it is no longer interference on a runner if she contacts a fielder who is fielding a batted ball, and there is no chance for an out on BR...

I don't read this as an implication of this proposed change --- it is a direct effect of this proposed change. No chance of an out - no play. No play, no interference.

This is a very bad change. Hopefully, the committee will see that.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This is a very bad change. Hopefully, the committee will see that.

Now might be a good time to interject how the ASA system works. There is not a single definitive committee; this is a lot like our federal government at work.

Several separate committees will meet to discuss these rules; anyone it may impact. This one, defining a "play" will be discussed by the JO (youth), Umpires, Player Reps, FP Playing Rules, SP Playing Rules, and Modified Playing Rules committees. Each will make a recommendation to the Playing Rules Committee, which can totally ignore those recommendations, and propose to accept or reject. No matter what THAT decision is, it goes before the entire (approximately) 400 voting members of the National Council. Recommendations of the Playing Rules Committee (as well as Code changes through the Legislative Committee) can be challenged by any one voting member, who can call for the entire body to vote. The only impact of the committee's decision is that it takes 60% +1 to overturn the committee recommendations, whether yea or nay.

More than once I have seen a consensus rule be voted out because of opposition by an influential politician. The committee only makes it a bit tougher, requiring a larger than simple majority.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Yes, this process is very interesting. Most people don't have a clue, but it is a very busy week between the committees and general council meetings.

The plus to this is that it takes a lot to get a change through, so those who think that ASA is a dictatorship are sadly mistaken. OTOH, it usually means that other than safety issues, needed changes may take an attempt or two to get by the "old school" element in the council.