2007 ASA Rule Changes
 

Does anyone have a preview of the proposed rule changes that may or may not make it to the floor, and projections about those that will pass?

Mike, Steve, anyone?

Funny you should ask.


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


Move adult SP bases to 70'

It SHOULD be passed, but probably will not.

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

Should pass

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

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.

Add a 2nd home plate to the Co-Ed Class B game.

If this change is going to happen, and I hope it does not, it should be to all Co-Ed, not just the Bs

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.

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

Should pass

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..

Same thing with the Senior SP, but no requirement for batting order to be even and it eliminates the short-handed out if someone must leave the game.

...and die on this.

Redefine the "scoring of runs" to include the ITB situation

Should pass

There are 8 proposed changes screwing with the allowable HRs for men's SP

Don't care

SP change allowing the pitcher to "take a position with both feet firmly on the ground and with one or both feet within the 24" width of the pitchers plate anywhere between the pitchers plate and second base" prior to delivering the pitch. All other requirements stay in place with the exception of the pivot foot contacting the PP

I consider this a joke and an insult to the players of the game. Unfortunately, with Jerry Hanson's name on it, the change has a chance

Men's FP: Eliminate the requirement of the step to remain inside the width of the PP

I believe this is a change to keep up with the Jones'

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.

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 think it is poorly worded and lacks specification, but I believe the intent is to eliminate all men's SP from being required to run awarded bases and possible HRs


I don't particularly care for walk-off HRs, but I really don't care what they do with them. I really don't like the idea of not being required to touch awarded bases unless it is a 4-base award.

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.

Add an exception to the awarding of bases on an overthrow: "When the runner from 1st is between 2nd and third when a fielder catches a fly ball and then releases the throw that subsequently goes out of play, the runner from first should only receive two bases from the last base legally touched".

Yeah, I know it is the same, but in the reasoning the author is making the declaration that because the runner from 1B had to return, s/he has not legally touched 2B, therefore the runner, who properly retouches the required bases should only be awarded 2 bases from 1B instead of the runner's position at the time of the release. The author should be required to attend five national schools and the UIC clinic at their own expense until they are allowed to submit another rule change.

There you go. Remember, you asked for it and I just facilitated your request.

They are really running out of stuff to monkey with, aren't they?

Thanks a lot for taking the time to post all of that.

Some of them, like the batters box rule, are horrible.

Re 10U Running rules..

If those 10Us are as good as everyone says, maybe its OK for National level play to let em have at it.

I've never worked 10U except a little bit of rec ball, and they suck.. so the limiting rules are good... but national level changes dont necessarily affect rec anyway.

Anyone work 10U national level ball.. do they really have 60Mph 10U pitchers (aside from all the DDs on ezteams of course)? If they are that good.. hell, hell let em play.

Given a choice though, I would rather have the committee for a year focus on clarifications/POEs .. and not make a single rule change. But what the hell do I know?

Thanks again Mike.

You are right, I asked for it...

If they voted NO on every one of these, they would be doing a great service to the game.

IMO;

We must change 18U to 43', we should change 16U to 43'. If I had my druthers, we would change 14U to 43', too, and push NFHS to follow.

For championship play, I agree that 10U (A) teams can (and perhaps should) play without baserunning restrictions. Not so 10B, and certainly not rec level.

The rest of the proposed changes are garbage.

I am surprised Henry gave up on the 3 ball walk and 2 strike out in slow pitch. It seems if he would just word it that all SP batters start with a 1-1 count, he could win (the traditionalists don't want to change 4 balls or 3 strikes); but he has refused in the past.

I missed that one. I hereby ammend my previous comment.

I guess the main reason for making this rule change is to eliminate an unfair advantage given to one team; what is the main objection to the rule?

Okay, say you were the home team and you blanked the opposition in the top of the inning. In the bottom of the inning, your team scores five runs. All of a sudden, a team complains that the pitcher's plate is off. The ground crew measures the distance and finds it to be four inches too long.

By rule, you team's defensive and offensive efforts are erased and you restart the game at the top of the inning.

The difference of 4" probably had absolutely NOTHING to do with either team's performance, but with this new rule, there is no option, the distance is corrected and you start anew.

Well, if the change passes, lets hope this exact scenario happens at a questionably maintained field at a highly visible NC or national. It'll then be the world record shortest-lived rule change!:D

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Too simplistic. How about hold a runner or limit the runner's advance? How about prevent the ball from going fair?
Favor this, but what's wrong with taking it all the way down to 12U? Someone with pitching or pitching coaching experience care to answer?

Agree - creates a real possiblity for an illegitimate "restart".

Rationale is stupid, but I don't really care. Maybe the safety issue will shoot it down.Seems rational, but does anyone make an optic yellow glove? Would this make the optic yellow brand name graphics illegal?

Stupid, since local leagues can do this already. Why put it in the championship rules?I'd like to see this in female FP! :DThis is a seriously bad idea. This is not dodgeball.
ASA does need to address the competition issue; they need to address it in MN for JO fastpitch as well, but for a completely different set of problems. ASA needs to be more market-oriented; I have no opinion on whether this will actually improve things for ASA in FL. However, as a rule change, the net effect is the local leagues will put back their own variation that will be not well thought through and overly simplistic, which will be a bad deal.

Then there would have to be a definition of "legally touched." After all, missing first base or leaving early on a caught fly does not make touching second base "illegal". It only makes the runner in jeopardy of being out on appeal.

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.




I support this rule to include 14-U

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.

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.

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


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

Especially if these are the Championship Rules...

I do no support this rule change whatsover.

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.


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.

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?

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.