Why move pitching distance?
 

Ok, I have to ask.....it seemed like the majority of people out there we in support of moving the pitching distance to 43'. So I ask what is the reasoning for wanting to move this back???

Safety. It gives the pitcher .02 seconds more response time on a batted ball hit back to the circle.

From a pitchers parents point of view .. and not necessarily my own .. just echoing what others say .. part of it is safety, part is the flip flop back and forth between 40 and 43 from HS ball, part and probably most importantly is colleges want to see how girls can do from a college distance. Puts those who are not playing Gold travel at a disadvantage for recruiting. As we hear the 18A ASA Nationals are turning into a B tournament because it's assumed and probably correct that the best players are at the Gold level.

Aside from these, I think folks feel that the 43 foot game is a better game to watch - more hitting. Only the stud pitchers are really able to dominate from that level, girls have more time to see the ball, etc.

And one more thought: It will partially prevent some of the younger kids from moving up an age level. That would remain to be seen though.

The poster named for a non-tremolo Fender guitar pretty much covered all the bases on this topic. :D

Could never stand the tremolo bar. Drove me nuts. :)

Last year, ISF moved international competition to 43'. College coaches have been requesting that they be able to scout at 43', because it would be easier for them to see players playing at the collegiate distance. In kneejerk reaction, ASA made 18 Gold (only) 43', without realizing the secondary results. Those results include 1) college coaches now treating 18A as B, since it is easier for them to look at players playing at 43', 2) teams that can't compete at Gold trying to move up, just so that more college coaches will look at their players, 3) players on 18A teams that try to play some 43' exposure tournaments struggling at 40', too, as a result of changing back and forth, 4) open tournaments having trouble filling brackets with teams that play from the same distances, 5) field owners having issues with placing pitching plates, 6) pitchers pitching from 43' having issues with a 40' pitching plate on that field interfering with their natural drag, etc., etc.

It is impossible to think that 18 Gold will go backwards, now. To fix these issues requires others to move to that same distance. At a minimum, all 18U teams need to play from the same distance. Many 16U teams want to play up with the big dogs at exposure tournaments; to make that happen without the same issues, they need to play from the same distance. Some people think that 14U should also change to the same distance, which would almost guarantee that NFHS (high school) would change, too, since all their ages would be playing 43' in travel ball.

Hope this helps you understand the real issues. The result would be more offense; not more safety. Pitchers that have dominated at 40' are much less dominant at 43'. Batters gaining .02 seconds reaction time to hit the ball is much more valuable than pitchers gaining .02 reaction time to defend their bodies. NCAA statistics showed substantial increase in offense (earned runs) the year the rule changed.

The flip side; why NOT change the pitching distance to 43'? Because the players can't be effective from that distance? Because no one wants the college coaches to influence the ASA game? Because making the exposure and open tournaments easier to administer for the better needs of the teams isn't a good idea?

All these make sense, and you have also expressed some of the concerns / difficulties that I have thought through in my mind. I was thinking of where does it stop? Lower level rec teams have a hard time hitting the plate from 40 feet let alone 43!! And the whole travel vs NFHS, switching back and forth would be VERY difficult in my mind! I do understand that the upper level it is important for college scouts to see what they would be getting but I just have this fear of how it will snowball down to the lower levels. I also agree that the extra flight time of the ball give the batter more time to aim that ball at the pitcher just like it give the pitcher more time to recover, and it would seem to my simple mind that the batter is going to win that war most of the time :)

IF it could be tested and shown to improve batter averages, increase scoring, and make it more interesting to those other than SB fans and as in such increase exposure and TV time, I would even favor going to 46.

I, on the other hand, could not imagine owning a Strat without one.

I do love my Strat but it's been cased now for a bit as I've been lured over to a Tele. Funny how much difference there is between the two. I've got a 64 Princeton ( non reverb ) that I play it through. Great sound.

Talk about yer thread hijacks....we have not only changed the subject of this one, but have taken it entirely out of the realm of softball officiating! :D

My primary amp is a 62 Bassman, though it is in desperate need of a retubing right now. I have never owned a Tele, though I have played one or two. There is definitely a major difference there.

Nice amp.

http://www.ampwares.com/ffg/bassman_blonde_6G6-A.html

I play mostly at home now and I really love my Peavey Classic 30, I think I got it back in about 93 or so. I also have a '46 Gibson BR6. Cheap little amp but the tone is incredible, original Rola speaker.

If you haven't visited here you may enjoy it. Great forum for amp and vintage gear folks.

http://www.fenderforum.com/forum.html

Do they also discuss softball? :D :D :eek: ;)

:D
Only when somebody takes them off-topic.
:D

You'll find gear heads in all walks of life. From corporate ceo's to the mailman. It's a passion like softball, you get in and get hooked. :)

I could always start a thread over there and see. :D

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz

I find the NCAA D1 game to be boring and dominated by a few elite pitchers. Getting tired of watching games on TV and seeing the same pitchers game after game. I sometimes wonder if the defenses behind them are really any good since they rarely get any chances.
I have long thought that the college distance should be moved to 46' and some restrictions placed on innings pitched. This would create more offense and force coaches to use some real game strategy thereby making the game more spectator friendly.

That inning limit idea might have some impact until all the schools learn that they have to have two dominating pitchers. Or make them play double headers to tire the starters out (though I see enough girls throwing 3 or 4 games in travel ball at 11 or 12 that I'm not sure that'd work).

In our 12U-ish recreational league last spring, there were 5 teams. Each team had a pitcher who was a starting pitcher on a travel ball and/or middle school team. The catch was that while the games were six innings, a pitcher could pitch in a maximum of 4 innings. The games usually hinged on how good the teams' second (or subsequent) string pitcher did that game (or how well the coach was able to strategically put his second pitcher against the bottom of the other team's lineup).

One coach alegedly wasn't aware of this limit during draft and only had one girl who had ever really pitched (and she IS a good pitcher) and he complained the entire season about how unfair the rule was.

You and I must be watching different games. The games I see have the ball put into play frequently, and the defense doing what they are supposed to do, hence the low scores. I am not seeing lots of strike outs. I personally think the college game is doing just fine.

He's watching Cat Osterman. I quit going to the games. The opposition and usually the Horns could not even put the ball in play. Boring ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Move the distance back and lets get some action.
Paste from an article:
Cat’s senior season produced five more no hitters, three of them being perfect games. Osterman opened the 2006 season with six consecutive shut-outs. On February 25th, Cat Osterman struck out six Fresno State batters and seven Lady Rebels to bring her career strikeout total to 1,774 surpassing Courtney Blades as the all-time leader in strikeouts. On April 5th, Cat Osterman struck out five batters to become the first NCAA pitcher, softball or baseball, to reach 2,000 strikeouts for her career.

And, the fastball is what to Cat? She's a movement pitcher. It is at least arguable that moving the plate back another 3' just gives her more room to work.

I had the pleasure to try to hit a curve ball thrown from 2B by Rich Hoppe of King and His Court. The damned thing went around 3B and then crossed the middle of the plate.

While I never had that pleasure Tony, I did work the plate twice while the King threw. The first time, he was maybe in his early-mid 50's. Even at that age, he was an awesome pitcher. When he was going to throw something strange, the catcher would let me know - I sure appreciated that. When somebody got a loud foul, you could see the face change, the competetive juices start to flow and nobody could touch the ball for a couple of innings. A good friend of mine (much older than me) umped several games between Feigner and Ty Stofflet - the slow guy in those games was around 105.

pitching distance is just part of the equation.
 

The following is just my opinion (4 years of coaching experience and a year of umpire experience) and would probably not fly with a lot of people in the game.

To make the game more spectator friendly, to force coaches to use real game strategy, and to make the game a little safer, moving the pitcher's plate back is only part of the equation. To do this properly would require not only moving the pitcher’s plate back, but opening up the field some by extending the base path distances. This would increase the safety factor for pitchers and the corners slightly, it would also tone down some, but not all, of the pitching dominance as the defense would have to work just a little harder.

GaryB

Actually, I agree.. and thought much the same many times.

The fact is, its not a "little girls" game any more.

When its very common at top levels to see .97 era.. you might have to start thinking outside the box.

Take any top level softball pitcher and they can sit down a pro baseball player time after time.

Assuming that Cat pitched two whole games on 2/25, for the home team, that's be 13 K out of 36 batters (2 games, bottom of 6 innings, 3 batters each) at least 27 apparently hit the ball somewhere.

I still don't see how one person can argue both safety and increased offense in the same breath with respect to moving the rubber back. And I keep hearing it...

It has increased the offense in your standard game. You are using one of the top pitchers in the country as a baseline. That dog don't hunt.

As far as the safety issue, considering the speed of the ball, the movement of the pitcher toward the launch point, I don't think the gain in safety is enough to use as valid reasoning.

Althought it might not have seemed like it, I agree with you there. I was trying to point out that even she wasn't untouchable. And I also wasn't thinking, if she were the home pitcher, then she was pitching the tops and therefore there were 6 more batters that touched the ball than I said (13K out of 42 batters, for 29 hits/errors/putouts)

I agree with this 100%. Many point out (accurately, I think) that any increase in reaction time for the pitcher is more than made up for by the increase in reaction time for the batter and the resulting increasted number of hits that the pitcher may need to react to.

You are using one of the top pitchers in the country as a baseline. That dog don't hunt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, lets use Alicia Hollowell, In the Championship game of the 2006 College World Series, she struck out 13 (8 looking):mad: The remainder of the outs were 3 foul outs 3 grounders and 2 flies to outfield. Sure, she is another top pitcher, but I could research the stats of the UCLA kid or Arizona State kid or Tennessee kid (we already talked about the Texas kid) and find similar results.

The reality is that each of the major programs has 1 top pitcher and we see the same programs year after year in the women's showcase (nationally televised) tourney. The games are lifeless affairs with the batters helplessly flailing at balls. Games are won, not because of outstanding offensive production (with Michigan the notable exception) but because the losing team boots one more slap bunt than the winner.

Its a boring product. Please fix it.

Not that I'm a hockey fan, although I am from Minnesota, but how is that analysis different from top hockey programs? Or top baseball programs? It's the nature of the beast. What's the saying in pro football, offense sells tickets, defense wins championships?

I don't think it needs fixing, I think that is our game and either you like it or you don't.

Let's talk about the 800K other players for which the rules being discussed exist. For round numbers, let's assume 10% of these players pitch at one point or another. That is approximately 80K pitchers. Now, for round numbers again, let's assume 10% are 16 or older and play at the level of ball which are being watched for the purpose of advancing in their educational endeavors with the help of the game of softball.

Do you still believe the game would be the same if the pitching distance was moved back for all of these players not playing at an elite level?

Do you still believe the game would be the same if the pitching distance was moved back for all of these players not playing at an elite level?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, my comments were directed at increasing offense in D1 college games, not whether 16 year olds bodies were mature enough to pitch from the increased distance. So, to be clear, 40 foot for all but the elite works fine.

In high school games, there is plenty of action at 40', so no compelling need to change. If your DD doesn't want to have to adjust from 43 to 40, then don't play high school ball, they are two different worlds anyway On the other hand, if you are a legitimate D1 pitching candidate, blowing away high school hitters will not be a problem from any distance.

If the colleges want to see the prospects from 43', then make the change. Using your example, it will be easier to separate the 8K kids that are competing for the 80 D1 pitching slots.

My opinion that perhaps moving the pitching distance would improve the scoring and perhaps make it more appealing to the televised masses is absolutely only directed towards the top level play. I love softball and even I find myself bored at times watching it on TV.

Make it higher scoring or put them in bikini's.. one or the other.

PONY will change
 

From PONY:
We have announced the following rule change for the 18 & Under program. We will now be pitching at 43' in 2007. This change was made after months of consideration and input. This change will align our program to the college pitching distance and other national softball programs.

We will allow our PONY tournament hosts to host 40' and/or 43' tournaments this season. The idea is to help transition the entire East Zone and Canada with the change. Please note that the 2007 PONY Nationals will be pitching at 43' in the 18 & Under age group.