From another site:

[tcannizzo]

this is not a pick one quiz. the answer is any or all of the above...

If you want to make this a quiz, then answer on each one is True or False?

1.True
2.True
3.True
4.True

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

this is not a pick one quiz. the answer is any or all of the above...

If you want to make this a quiz, then answer on each one is True or False?

1.True
2.True
3.True
4.True

1=false
2=false
3=false
4=yeah right

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

1. It is not a rule change, just a clarification of wording for INT regarding non-batted balls.
2. INT by definition is an act which implies intent. Therefore, there is no such thing as non-intentional interference.
3. The call is INT. The no-call is incidental contact.
4. There are no changes in the way INT will be called in 2007.

If this is a true / false quiz, only the NUS can address 1, 3, and 4 as they try to make understandable sense of the nonsense. However, 2 is clearly false, which incidentally was the supposed reason behind this change.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't believe it is broken. For that matter, this system is probably the most democratic and fairest in the world (JMO).

I didn't say it was unfair or undemocratic. But actions speak: the inability to address the 43' pitching distance problem at 18U (and the resulting fast decline of 18U A) and the screwing up of a perfectly good set of rules dealing with interference because somebody got a bug up their butt about the definition; both point to a broken process in my view.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I didn't say it was unfair or undemocratic. But actions speak: the inability to address the 43' pitching distance problem at 18U (and the resulting fast decline of 18U A) and the screwing up of a perfectly good set of rules dealing with interference because somebody got a bug up their butt about the definition; both point to a broken process in my view.

No, you stated the system was broken. I gave my opinion why I disagree.

BTW, just because the pitching distance wasn't changed to your satisfaction doesn't mean it wasn't addressed. It was discussed ad nauseam. Two different proposals were even challenged on the floor. The proposal changing only 18U A only received 47% to accept. That for all 18U received 48.7%. Neither received a straight majority let alone the 60% required. So, the perception that the ASA failed to address the issue.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

I agree with what you write. It ain't broken, but it could use some improvement.

Specifically, there should be a full-time linguistic grammarian who can take the rules and make them make sense. Especially in light of the fact that less than 1% of the 35K umpires out there use nothing more than the rule book and case book.

The book needs to be re-written from cover to cover, if for no other reason that for effective business communication.

Actually, the NUS has a full-time grammarian and you know him. And we (him and I) have discussed this issue.

The rule book is not a novel. It is a reference document, not a "good read". The purpose of a reference document is to provide information in a manner which will be understood by those to whom it is directed.

Personally, I think the ASA rule book is concise and one of the better written rule books around. Try reading MLB's book or, even better, the NCAA football rules. Part of the issue I believe most people have with ASA rules, as I have preached as long as I have been on this board, is that ASA rules are a package, not just a set of pages in a book. The package includes the rules, POE, the case book and clinics. It is an umpire's responsibility to learn their trade. That includes annual maintenance.

When I note that my concern is the 30K that may not comprehend the rule changes, it isn't so much as those umpires personally, but the manner in which they represent ASA and the integrity of the game. As an ASA umpire, it is embarassing to have an umpire impose a local rule, or myth, during a national championship.

[wadeintothem]

I think they could rewrite it to a War and Peace novel and STILL we'd be right here discussing situations not exactly covered, confusing, or controversial.. the only difference would be we'd have to dig through 100000 more pages to find the reference.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

BTW, just because the pitching distance wasn't changed to your satisfaction doesn't mean it wasn't addressed. It was discussed ad nauseam. Two different proposals were even challenged on the floor. The proposal changing only 18U A only received 47% to accept. That for all 18U received 48.7%. Neither received a straight majority let alone the 60% required. So, the perception that the ASA failed to address the issue.

Either what I am hearing from 18U division folks is a bunch of bunk, or the different pitching distance is doing damage. I don't really care much wheher it is 40, 43, 46, 50... just make it all the same for the same age group. Some parts of the country aren't overrun with 18U teams, and need to be able to combine A and Gold teams into invitational tournaments. While trying to defend the process, you have illustrated my point. Lots of discussion is fine, unless there is a problem that actually needs to be addressed for the good of the sport.

Maybe the people I hear from are just whiners, but it sure seems to me like the pitching distance at 18U is chaos right now. That chaos needs to be addressed, not discussed with no action taken. The problem is bigger than just ASA, but the sport surely could have used some leadership on this issue from the NGB.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Either what I am hearing from 18U division folks is a bunch of bunk, or the different pitching distance is doing damage. I don't really care much wheher it is 40, 43, 46, 50... just make it all the same for the same age group. Some parts of the country aren't overrun with 18U teams, and need to be able to combine A and Gold teams into invitational tournaments. While trying to defend the process, you have illustrated my point. Lots of discussion is fine, unless there is a problem that actually needs to be addressed for the good of the sport.

Maybe the people I hear from are just whiners, but it sure seems to me like the pitching distance at 18U is chaos right now. That chaos needs to be addressed, not discussed with no action taken. The problem is bigger than just ASA, but the sport surely could have used some leadership on this issue from the NGB.

The more you listen to some people, the more you will find that whatever sanctioning body under which a team played the previous week is always better then of the org. this week.

Three years ago, I heard from a bundle of youth softball folks about how the three-game guarantee is the format of the future. Well, that lasted just one year at the JO level. A few years ago, we all heard about how ASA had to mandate face masks on batting helmets. ASA did what these folks wanted. Did not take a full day before people started complaining about the extra $15 they were going to need to spend to get an "approved" face mask. Even though these people had over a year's notice, they still weren't smart enough to figure this one out. People are now starting to "demand" mandated face protection for pitchers and infielders at the corners. If ASA is dumb enough to follow through with this, how long do you think it will take for the whining about the need to buy new equipment to begin?

I've stopped taking this information so seriously. I'll listen and store it away someplace for future reference.

You seem to insist that a lack of change was "no action". The general council took action. They acted by rejecting the proposed change, the same as Federation did.

[wadeintothem]

Why does it even really matter Dakota?

I'm quite sure next year we will all work the same amount as is our normal routine and nothing will be affected by ASA not changing the pitching distance. The sky is not falling; there will definately be no mass exodus from ASA.. and our phone will still ring for the tournies.

In short.. it doesnt matter.

It is probably a foregone conclusion that it will eventually be changed IMO.. but in the mean time, we call as we always call.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The more you listen to some people, the more you will find that whatever sanctioning body under which a team played the previous week is always better then of the org. this week.

I noted the problem was bigger than ASA. ASA 18 Gold, U-trip 18 Majors, and Fla high school are all 43'. ASA 18A and B, and U-trip 18U, AFA, NSA and non-Fla NFHS are all 40', but word is NSA has moved to 43' in 2007 and AFA will be offering selective 43' nationals.

ASA and NFHS are pretty much the only organizations with enough clout to end this. They've both chosen to do nothing. While deciding to do nothing is a decision, it is still doing nothing.

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

there will definately be no mass exodus from ASA

The snowball is gathering size and speed here, but that has to do mostly with local issues. And, as I said to Mike, it is not an ASA-only issue, but ASA is one of 2 organizations with the clout to lead on the issue.

I don't intend to keep beating this horse. After all, I'm an umpire, not an 18U coach. Hopefully, ASA has the wisdom to form a working group to develop consensus on this issue before next fall. It would be even better if that working group included representatives from the NFHS.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The snowball is gathering size and speed here, but that has to do mostly with local issues. And, as I said to Mike, it is not an ASA-only issue, but ASA is one of 2 organizations with the clout to lead on the issue.

I don't intend to keep beating this horse. After all, I'm an umpire, not an 18U coach. Hopefully, ASA has the wisdom to form a working group to develop consensus on this issue before next fall. It would be even better if that working group included representatives from the NFHS.

Based on information from several top movers and shakers in NFHS, including representatives from that group will make sure there is no consensus that makes a larger group move to 43'. It IS A MAJOR SNOWBALL here in Georgia, making ASA 18A a problem child to address, and the consensus of teams, players, and coaches is that 43' is where they feel they need to play that game. Nonetheless, NFHS is adamently opposed, going on record that making that change even for 18A will hurt the high school game.

They (the NFHS rules committee) believe that there are significant numbers of schools, areas, and even complete states, where the pitching level is already so bad that they cannot mandate two feet on the pitching plate, let alone 43', without making the "have-nots" even worse competitively compared to the "haves". They believe that toughening the pitching rule in either of these two categories runs the risk of schools without competitive pitching disbanding their teams if no one can or will pitch for them. In face or that possibility, it would be inappropriate to adopt a rule making the game more competitive for the more advanced participants, if the result is reduced participation.

The obvious counter argument is that bad pitching will remain bad pitching, so why not make the game more competitive offensively, and force feed the creation of the higher level of play. After all, does NFHS baseball pitch from 55' feet to compensate for lesser pitching? Do they shoot basketball free throws from 14' to compensate? As long as ASA remains at 40', NFHS can remain at 40', being a national standard for those of high school age. If ASA moved to 43', there would be increased pressure on NFHS to change (although they have steadfastly ignored and refuted the pressure to force two feet on the pitching plate).

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

They (the NFHS rules committee) believe ...

Is there enough data yet from the Fla experiment to support or refute their fears? Have teams disbanded?

[IRISHMAFIA]

It was humorous to some level that the people for the change (ASA) would say it helped the 18U A by giving the girls who want to pitch at 43' a place to play without moving up to an already saturated 18U Gold. Meanwhile, some against the change say keeping it at 40' provides a place for the girls who don't want to or cannot pitch at 43' to play.

So, in essence, both sides of the issue believed their position helped the 18U A.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It was humorous to some level that the people for the change (ASA) would say it helped the 18U A by giving the girls who want to pitch at 43' a place to play without moving up to an already saturated 18U Gold. Meanwhile, some against the change say keeping it at 40' provides a place for the girls who don't want to or cannot pitch at 43' to play.

So, in essence, both sides of the issue believed their position helped the 18U A.

So, those who insist on dumbing down the game the players and coaches want think that is a positive? Why haven't they mandated an alternate 12U division for the girls who don't want to or can't pitch at 40' yet, to stay at 35'?

A more reasonable solution might be to change 18 A to 43', and keep 18 B at 40'. If "they" are right, the 18 B division would come back, and teams that can't compete at Gold would stay at 18 A. If they are wrong, no one will play 18 B (and they don't now, anyway).

That's simply double-speak horsecrap for "they can't tell us how they want to play their game, we know what's best".