From another site:
 

Stealing from another site, let's see what folks here have to say in the way of discussion about this.

Source, Georgia Blue Forum; GaBlue. 2006.

From this site...
 

Quoting myself when this rule change was being discussed prior to be adopted... ASA insiders seem to forget that 99.99% of the ASA umpires and coaches are NOT insiders and will not be attending a rules clinic taught by a member of the NUS. This means that the vast majority of ASA umpires will be hearing about this rule change and how to officially interpret it 3rd or 4th hand from the "official" interpretation about the runner "committing and act" or whatever. And, the vast majority of coaches will hear about it from their buddy who coaches another team or from their league and the "interpretation" will either be completely missing or horribly mangled.

Besides, I'll bet you dollars to donuts even the NUS will not teach this rule change the same way.

Somebody must have thought the game was getting too boring and wanted to add some coach-to-umpire excitement.

Just what the game needs. :D

Well, imagine my surprise....
 

....when I saw my post on officalforum.com. Here's the reply I got and my comment.


From AtlUmpSteve....

We don't yet have the official interpretation how to call this revised rule, but I suspect, from all I have heard, that your play is either a "no call" or an unsportsmanlike act by F6, if it is deemed intentional by the umpire.

The purpose of this rule change, as I understand it, is to now penalize acts of interference that were previously ignored by an umpire because the umpire couldn't or wouldn't judge intent. It will require an actual "act" of interference, something specificly done to interfere, something more substantive than simply running the bases in a proper and legal manner. In this play, waving the arms, kicking out the leg to hit the ball, or altering the path knowingly, would qualify.

If the shortstop hits the runner who is doing nothing abnormal, it is E6, not interference; or else it may be an ejection, in an obvious and extreme case by F6.
__________________
Steve Marcus


And my reply....


That makes sense and thats how I would call it. A runner should not be penalized for running the bases in a normal fashion. It dawned on me after I wrote my first point that ASA was just removing the need to judge the act as intentional. The actions that would constitute interference are probably still the same, now we just don't have to determine if it was accidental or intentional. The runner would still have to do something beyond normal action that would interfere with the defenses ability to make an out. I also noticed that ASA put in a definition for making a play. I like the added definition.

So, what's the difference? Even with the word "intentional/intentionally" included in the rule, there are umpires ruling that a runner's failure to act was in itself interference. How do you think umpires like that are going to rule now? Remember, there are 35K ASA umpires and any additional guidance available, IMO, is better than a simple black and white statement in the book which makes the rule vague, at best.

I can't imagine that there is a problem at any decent level of umpiring where the above listed play is being called INT. I dont think I've ever seen it called.

I would say the ones most affected by the rule are the ones that were vague and now more vague -- steal to 3rd with batter in box, delayed swing, some of the INT's discussed recently on this board, etc.

I can because I have seen it. Think about the umpire that call OBS because a catcher is standing in the baseline while the runner is rounding 3B. Think about the umpire ejects a player for throwing a bat back toward the dugout; not in anger, to be have it put away. Think of......well, you get the idea.

There are still too many "black and white" umpires that do NOT get the proper instruction, interpretation or just want to apply THEIR personal interpretation to a rule. Teams which travel to multiple tournaments see these guys/gals all the time in different cities and it drives the coaches nuts.

Remember a year or so ago when a poster noted that his UIC finally admitted that his (UIC's) belief that the ASA rule change for the previous year (requiring possession of the ball to avoid OBS) was not a mistake?

I believe this was either a state or metro UIC. Well, if a state or metro takes it upon themselves to make personal determinations on such a major rule change, what do you think happens with the interpreters/trainers/mentors at the local level?

There is very little question that those who work the upper-level NCs will/should not have a problem with applying the reworded rule on INT. However, you still need to worry about the other 30K plus and that is where my concern lies.

It's too bad that ASA softball does not have its equivalent of the J/R, the annotated rule book, the BRD, the MLBUM, the PBUC, and so on.

And even with all those publications, OBR contains problematic plays.

I'd like to see the softball version of J/R or an annoted rule book - Bennett saw to it that we've got a rules differences book. With some of the other books, I don't see a need for them. What would be a pipe dream would be to see some of the alphabet soup sanctioning bodies go away.

I suspect that would be even worse. As it stands now, too many people (coaches and umpires alike) can't reconcile differences in the ASA rule book, the POE's, the umpire manual, and the casebook. Already four documents, and most coaches haven't read even one.

Add further that OBR rules (at least to my knowledge) aren't tweaked annually; and that every tweak or change almost universally creates a conflict in one or more of the four documents.

Mine, too, although I'm actually more concerned with the hundreds of umpires locally than with your 30K nationally, along with the coaches who will only pick up the high points of the rules changes, and some of those will be second or third hand.

On the face of it, removing "intent" means this includes "accidental" and "unintentional." That is the way far too many will believe the rule to be, and therefore start looking for dodgeball outs.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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".

And we, he and I, . . .

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

While I agree that this helps others understand the NFHS viewpoint, there is a signficant difference between the example rules. A pitcher who wants to have both feet on the PP can do so, as the rule allows either option. The distance woud be fixed, so a pitcher who wants 40' would have no choice.
I'm not saying this means it should be changed or not, just that the comparison is not exact.

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???

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.

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.

A Florida umpire's perspective:

No HS teams disbanded that I'm aware of. The teams with bad pitching at 40' were still bad at 43'. The good pitchers loved it -- and so did potential college coaches.

In my unscientific and limited sample of games, I didn't see any pitchers who had a big problem adjusting. Both varsity and JV games seemed shorter, if anything, with more balls being put into play. I don't think any studies were planned to compare runs per game, hits per game, or ERA statistics, but my impression was that all three went up a small percentage.

Mike,
:D
You said "I understand. If I didn't have anything better to do than be the moose-crossing guard, I would have done the same." From a slow pitch ump?? :D

Good catch Steve,
Slow pitch, isn't that were you stand and watch Moose cross home plate? And guard against too high or too low pitches? Guess he would have the experience to discuss being a moose crossing guard.:D

That's all you northerners speaking.

Here in the south, all slow pitch players are named Bubba, not Moose.

Steve,

Need I remind you that there is more action in two innings of a SP game than there are in many entire FP games?

Need I also remind you that I worked the little ball for 22 years before moving over to softball? Got bored with that game. Too many egos and not enough action. So now I just enjoy the action and tune out the egos.

BTW, the Mooses and Bubbas in the SP softball are becoming a myth in Championship Play.

Maybe so, Mike. That was just too good a straight line to pass up.

But I can just picture the BU in a SP game as a "crossing guard".

I did modified pitch this fall and loved it. You get a lot of action with a lot of bangers, a K zone that is very close to FP, and hitters that can crush the ball. If the pitcher stays legal, (you better call it if he does not) the ball will be very hittable. Even though I have not done any SP (yet) I have played SP and think that modified is the best of both worlds. I do prefer FP and I got my association letter yesterday getting us ready for the NFHS season. It is time to get stoked baby.

I agree, modified is a great game. Unfortunately, here on Long Island, men's modified is shrinking while SP continues to remain strong and fast pitch is growing rapidly. I think the problem with men's modified is a shortage of good pitchers.

well that.. and no one knows what the heck it is. Ive never even seen a modified game.

MP disappeared in my state a while back. We've tried to reintroduce it by bringing some teams in for a tournament, but the guys around hear are long on BS and short on the courage to try a more demanding game than SP.

Little do they know that many would do well as the adjustment from baseball to MP is much easier than to SP. Well, nobody said they were smart.

Pitcher takes it back and pitches as fast as he can without windmill. The good male pitchers thow just as fast as femail fastpitch with as much movement on the ball.

Pitcher takes it back and pitches as fast as he can without windmill. The good male pitchers thow just as fast as female fastpitch with as much movement on the ball.

Stamp out redundancy........now, now, now!!!!! :D

Big sig...

If you look down in the right hand corner of your post, you will notice a button that says "edit." You can use that feature to correct spelling or grammatical mistakes without double posting. You can also delete a post from there.

Are you saying he's redundant ... that he repeats himself ... that he says the same thing over and over? ;)

Sorry Guys, I'm new at this....but learning.
THANKS!

You two are both being repetitious and redundant.

I disagree. Judging by the number of new threads and posts these days (it is the off-season for most of us) what you regard as redundancy is merely the echo in this nearly empty chatroom...chatroom...chatroom...

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times...don't be redundant!

I have often pondered the question of which is worse, ignorance or apathy. I finally decided that I don't know and I don't care.

Haven't I told you a million times not to exaggerate?

reported