ASA Convention Notes

[IRISHMAFIA]

Case book will probably be on CD instead of printed. It is to be more stream-lined and easier to read. Also, should be sold at a cheaper rate.

Umpire manual to be reworked a piece at a time.

Kevin Ryan named "Supervisor of Umpires" with Julie, Jim, Phil & Larry as Deputy Supervisors.

National School format is being reconfigured, which will include more mechanics action and less lecture time

The 43' pitching distance is not a done deal. If it passes, it will be at the 18U only.

The 10U running restrictions will probably be lifted for 10U A, but left in place for 10U B.

Walk-off home runs for Men's SP at the B level seems to have a chance, and possibly for all Men's SP.

Bat Doctor decision is being appealed by the defendents, but apparently have a very weak case to sustain the appeal.

ASA 2007 Advance Camps:

FP: Cummings, GA
SP: Killeen, TX

Next year's umpire registration will probably include a request for e-mail address from each umpire.

All 2007 National Schools posted on ASA Page

P.S. Almost forgot. They are working on putting the ASA Umpire Test on line. Not just printing it, but taking the test on-line. This should be interesting.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Thank's, Mike. Please continue to update us.

By way of clarification, there have only been preliminary subcommittee meetings. This (the 43' pitching prediction) would represent the reactions of the Umpire Committee, and probably the JO Committee and Fast Pitch Playing Rules Committee. Regardless that input, there is still every possibility that the Playing Rules Committee (which meets tomorrow morning) might/could recommend something else, and that the National Council (which votes Thursday) may pass something different.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Thank's, Mike. Please continue to update us.

By way of clarification, there have only been preliminary subcommittee meetings. This (the 43' pitching prediction) would represent the reactions of the Umpire Committee, and probably the JO Committee and Fast Pitch Playing Rules Committee. Regardless that input, there is still every possibility that the Playing Rules Committee (which meets tomorrow morning) might/could recommend something else, and that the National Council (which votes Thursday) may pass something different.

It looks like this has a slim, if any, chance of passing. BTW, Fed will not change though I understand FL will continue with the 43' pitching distance.

[IRISHMAFIA]

The following are those rule changes I consider important to umpires. All have been approved and passed by the General Council. IOW, barring a few editorial changes, these are now official:

SP batter's box is not 4'X7'.

Senior ball, all players may bat in the order. All shorthanded rules apply, if necessary.

Class D ball - HR ends the inning.

JO 10U running restrictions have been deleted

Men's FP - Remove 24" requirement for pitcher's feet

Pitcher may not throw behind their back or between their legs in all games

Remove intentional from most interference rules. The manner in which the calls are made are not to be changed. Now, the umpire is to judge whether the player/coach "commits an act" which causes interference. This will be better defined at the Bienniel UIC Clinic in February. I cannot wait.

Also, Bob Savoie, Region 3 UIC, announced his retirement effective at the end of this year.

[AtlUmpSteve]

We will have a PR **** storm here, with the failure to approve 43' for (at least) 18A. There is truthfully no valid reason to deny the teams what they overwhelmingly wanted as to how to play their game.

[DaveASA/FED]

When you say JO 10U all running restrictions have been lifted....is that for all levels of 10U, or just A??

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

SP batter's box is not 4'X7'.

Probably not 12' x 15' either.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

We will have a PR **** storm here, with the failure to approve 43' for (at least) 18A. There is truthfully no valid reason to deny the teams what they overwhelmingly wanted as to how to play their game.

And what happens if all the other sanctions change the distance?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Remove intentional from most interference rules. The manner in which the calls are made are not to be changed. Now, the umpire is to judge whether the player/coach "commits an act" which causes interference. This will be better defined at the Bienniel UIC Clinic in February. I cannot wait.

What a completely idiotic rule change. What was the motivation for this? This will create an even bigger FUBAR than the obstruction POE!

NFHS created a mini dodgeball situation with their stupid ruling on running lane violations on a base on balls.

But if that ruling was stupid, this rule change is senseless, brainless, idiotic, ill-advised, irrational, ridiculous, mindless, ludicrous, absurd, half-witted, nonsensical, daft, illogical, unintelligent, irresponsible, scatterbrained, addled, misguided, injudicious, imbecilic, addleheaded, insane, mad, incoherent, outrageous, preposterous, unreasonable, asinine, unwise, careless, cuckoo, boneheaded, goofy, dumb, half-baked, harebrained, screwy, loony, batty, and nutty.

I'd go on but both my thesaurus and I have run out of words.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Dakota

What a completely idiotic rule change. What was the motivation for this? This will create an even bigger FUBAR than the obstruction POE!

NFHS created a mini dodgeball situation with their stupid ruling on running lane violations on a base on balls.

But if that ruling was stupid, this rule change is senseless, brainless, idiotic, ill-advised, irrational, ridiculous, mindless, ludicrous, absurd, half-witted, nonsensical, daft, illogical, unintelligent, irresponsible, scatterbrained, addled, misguided, injudicious, imbecilic, addleheaded, insane, mad, incoherent, outrageous, preposterous, unreasonable, asinine, unwise, careless, cuckoo, boneheaded, goofy, dumb, half-baked, harebrained, screwy, loony, batty, and nutty.

I'd go on but both my thesaurus and I have run out of words.

Tom - I'm sick of you beating around the bush....tell us what you really think!!!!!

[wadeintothem]

Maybe Mike could clarify what he means. Intent is not an aspect of most Int calls anyway.

Are you saying they are removing intent from a batter in a batters box on a throw?

As to the others, everyone wants 43'.. I think 18U would be fine if ASA went ahead and did it that way.

The 10U A is fine. My only problem is 10U rules already are confusing at the lower levels (nonJO play) and this just muddies the water. Another aspect of 10U we will have to explain ad nauseum.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by Dakota

What a completely idiotic rule change. What was the motivation for this? This will create an even bigger FUBAR than the obstruction POE!

NFHS created a mini dodgeball situation with their stupid ruling on running lane violations on a base on balls.

But if that ruling was stupid, this rule change is senseless, brainless, idiotic, ill-advised, irrational, ridiculous, mindless, ludicrous, absurd, half-witted, nonsensical, daft, illogical, unintelligent, irresponsible, scatterbrained, addled, misguided, injudicious, imbecilic, addleheaded, insane, mad, incoherent, outrageous, preposterous, unreasonable, asinine, unwise, careless, cuckoo, boneheaded, goofy, dumb, half-baked, harebrained, screwy, loony, batty, and nutty.

I'd go on but both my thesaurus and I have run out of words.

Tom - what are you talking about? With the rule change, "When in doubt, call 'em out" has changed to "Call 'em out-let's go get a beer".

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Remove intentional from most interference rules.

Mike said intent is removed from “most” interference rules.

A quick scan of the rule book has intent required for interference here:

7-6-K Exception-2 (ball roll into dropped bat) Always out?
7-6-Q (hindering catcher while standing in the box) Dodgeball #1?
8-2-E Running lane violation, with orange base, play from foul territory, BR may run in fair territory and is not out if hit with the thrown ball, unless intentional. Dodgeball #2?
8-2-F BR intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the box. Dodgeball #3?
8-7-J-3 Runner interferes with a thrown ball. Dodgeball #4?
8-7-J-4 With a player on a deflected ball. Omniscient runner rule?
8-7-L Kicks a fair ball an infielder has missed. Reward poor fielding rule?
8-7-O Coach interferes with a batted or thrown ball. Dodgeball#5?
8-7-P Retired / scored runner. The Harry Potter runner goes “poof” rule?

That is nine rules. "Most" would seem to mean at least 5 of those. OK, now, you tell me, for which 5 of these you think it is a GOOD thing to remove intent?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Mike said intent is removed from “most” interference rules.

A quick scan of the rule book has intent required for interference here:

7-6-K Exception-2 (ball roll into dropped bat) Always out?
7-6-Q (hindering catcher while standing in the box) Dodgeball #1?
8-2-E Running lane violation, with orange base, play from foul territory, BR may run in fair territory and is not out if hit with the thrown ball, unless intentional. Dodgeball #2?
8-2-F BR intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the box. Dodgeball #3?
8-7-J-3 Runner interferes with a thrown ball. Dodgeball #4?
8-7-J-4 With a player on a deflected ball. Omniscient runner rule?
8-7-L Kicks a fair ball an infielder has missed. Reward poor fielding rule?
8-7-O Coach interferes with a batted or thrown ball. Dodgeball#5?
8-7-P Retired / scored runner. The Harry Potter runner goes “poof” rule?

That is nine rules. "Most" would seem to mean at least 5 of those. OK, now, you tell me, for which 5 of these you think it is a GOOD thing to remove intent?

well the worst one is obviously the batter in the box. I dont see how they can even be considering removing intent from that. If they do that, if I was coaching, on a steal to 3 I would teach my catcher to nail the batter. So will MANY other coaches.

[wadeintothem]

Remove intentional from most interference rules. The manner in which the calls are made are not to be changed. Now, the umpire is to judge whether the player/coach "commits an act" which causes interference. This will be better defined at the Bienniel UIC Clinic in February. I cannot wait.

As I reread it...

This could mean no practical difference in application, aside from the ASA causing us trouble w/ trying to explain it to the coaches. It very well could be more like the "uncaught/dropped 3 K" argument, where the argument is language used as opposed to any practical difference on the field. ASA Loves to goof with wording for no reason whatsoever but to make it more difficult to read.