From another site:

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This change, and the inability to deal with the chaos at 18U with pitching distance, has convinced me that the rules changing process at ASA is broken.

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

You need to remember, this process isn't a group of game and administrative officials getting together the tweaking the game to suit themselves.

This is a very diverse group which includes players, managers, coaches umpires, commissioners, affiliated reps, parks & rec reps, sports assn. folks, etc. which decide that is right to change or not. Is it a slow process? Sometimes, but it does work.

Each proposed rule change, no matter how ludicrous it may seem, is accepted, reviewed by numerous committees and subcommittees, each offering a recommendation. A good point is that in most committees, anyone is allowed to speak and/or offer an opinion, not just council or committee member. Some committees are so aware of the presence of non-council members, the chair will specifically ask if any "guests" have anything to add to the discussion.

All recommendations are reported to the Rules Committee which offers a final recommendation base upon their vote. Even then, the recommendation to approve or reject can be challenged on the floor to the entire general council. To win the vote on the floor, the motion to accept or reject must pass with a 60% majority. If for some reason an amendment was made during dicussion on the floor, it must pass by a 75% majority.

Yeah, it's a tough system, but there is no question that it is fair as it can possibly be. However, that doesn't mean that everything is always right. There have been changes in the past reversed the following year once we see how the change affected the game.

[tcannizzo]

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). However, it is also probably one of the most demanding.

You need to remember, this process isn't a group of game and administrative officials getting together the tweaking the game to suit themselves.

This is a very diverse group which includes players, managers, coaches umpires, commissioners, affiliated reps, parks & rec reps, sports assn. folks, etc. which decide that is right to change or not. Is it a slow process? Sometimes, but it does work.

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.

[tcannizzo]

So, let's figure out what might make the most sense in applying this particular rule change. And how might be the best way to manage the 2007 game.

Suggestions:
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.

Feel free to word-smith this list in any way.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

So, let's figure out what might make the most sense in applying this particular rule change. And how might be the best way to manage the 2007 game.

Suggestions:
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.

Feel free to word-smith this list in any way.

Ohhh I know this one!! Pick me! Pick me!

Ok.. um.... I pick 1.... no wait!!! 4!!! wait wait wait.. ugh I get so nervous on tests... I pick 2 .. ugh crap.

Never mind, some one else can guess.

[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.

[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.

[Alaska Ump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

And we, he and I, . . .

Sorry, I couldn't resist. And, no, I am not the full-time grammarian.

[DaveASA/FED]

Ok, I am getting in on the end of this issue after we have changed topic a few times, man miss a day miss a lot I tell you what!!

Anyway, back to the OP, I have a stupid question. To me taking intent out of the rule book leads to more issues. I know anyone can cook up any play, so let's take a sample of my cooking.

Same situation, R1 heading to 3rd, SS fields the ball that throws to the open area around the runner, but that darn runner is fast and runs right into the throw, again this is my world I was there so take my word for it , no intent by the fielder to hit the runner, just timing. Last year I would say if the coach asked "Wasn't intentional coach not INT" This year what am I going to say? Again I don't have the new book so I have no clue how the whole picture comes together (POE, casebook and rule book cover to cover all sections combined) BUT, to me it opens the door to the following conversation.

C: "Blue, that is INT"
U:"No coach there was no intent"
C: "Don't have to have intent, rule changed this year"
U: "I know coach, but intent is assumed in interference and there wasn't any"
C: "Rule says interferes with a thrown ball, ball hit her, and skipped to the fence how is that not interfering?"
U: "There was no intent by the fielder to cause that ball to go, it was incidential contact"
C: "Don't have to be intent, rule chaged this year"......

On and on. To me in my little mind, it is making it MUCH harder NOT to call INT on these situation since there is no intent in the rule. UNLESS, another part of the book has changed that lists intent is required to have INT, but I have not heard of this. To me making this an implied thing, will make coaches feel like they are out of the loop, and if all they have is the book, where are they suppose to learn that intent is still required even though the book don't tell them that anymore???

[AtlUmpSteve]

We don't have all the feedback that will come from the NUS, but I would address your coach by saying the runner didn't commit an act of interference. The result may be that the ball hit the runner and that the fielder was therefore unable to make the play, but the runner committed no act that could be construed as interference.

The necessary act may be one of commission, or omission where an action would be expected; a case where neither occurred just isn't an act of interference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Alaska Ump

And we, he and I, . . .

Sorry, I couldn't resist. And, no, I am not the full-time grammarian.

I understand. If I didn't have anything better to do than be the moose-crossing guard, I would have done the same.

Just kidding, of course.

[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.