ASA rules change process - is it broken?

[Dakota]

Never being the shrinking violet type, and willing to come dangerously close to biting the hand that feeds me, I have put up a new editorial on the Softball Umpires web site. Check it out.

Since I am taking advantage of eteamz's generosity in providing a free site, there is no way for people to respond directly to the editorial. So, feel free to respond here if you like.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Never being the shrinking violet type, and willing to come dangerously close to biting the hand that feeds me, I have put up a new editorial on the Softball Umpires web site. Check it out.

Since I am taking advantage of eteamz's generosity in providing a free site, there is no way for people to respond directly to the editorial. So, feel free to respond here if you like.

Well, since Tom expects a reply from me (probably as he was typing it), I will.

The process isn't so much broken as it is the manner in which rule changes are sold.

The batter's box thing was present as "what the players wanted" only to find out later that that group of players was just a small portion from a certain area. Not being umpires, many will go along with a good presentation of reasoning.

The interference issue was submitted by the Supervisor, his deputies and the NUS. Again, not being umpires, many of the council will accept what the "pros" have to say. I spoke against this change in every committee meeting I attended. Did it tick off anyone? Probably, but I'm not there for them or myself. At a couple of committee meetings, I got my point across, but not enough to turn a recommendation of the committee to reject the proposal.
There were also some great discussions on this topic in the hallways, but it would have taken someone of higher consideration than I to persuade enough to change. I will say that no committee overwhelmingly approved these changes and in some cases required more than one vote.

If anything needs to be done to the process, it is to get younger blood in the system. There are too many long-time members who attend for the vacation and not to perform their duties. This leaves a lot of committee work in the hands of a few. Do not get me wrong. Almost everyone with whom I've interacted at these conventions are there for the good of ASA.

Many of you have heard me respond to outsiders here and in other venues that ASA is not an ivory tower corporation with a small group dropping edicts from a lofty ivy-framed window. The problem here is that the smaller the group of active participants becomes, the more it will appear that changes are made to satisfy the few. Many folks have input into the system. The issue is that if you want that input, you need to work for it.

That means getting involved in ASA locally. Work your way up the food chain and get the ear of those in charge. If you have an idea, share it. When an opening occurs in your commissioner's council, staff, whatever, try to win the seat. It does take time and dedication and there isn't the instant gratification so many people demand in today's world. If you have to pay to attend some regional or state events, do it. This ride isn't free.

[wadeintothem]

Re: INT
I was with you in Knee Jerk reaction to the change.. youre standing fast with the knee jerk reaction making estimations I doubt will come to fruition on any appreciable level.

With ASA, I am not particularly a "company man". I hate the fact they have turned me into a walking ASA billboard.. but whatever. I work ASA because it is the ball in my area, if they exploded tomorrow, I would work whatever org took their place. If I think they are wrong, I will most definitely say so... HERE.. On the field, its their rules.

The reality is, I am just an ump.. what they write into the rules I will work hard to learn. I dont have the desire to do the things required to "move up" in ASA. That is a thankless job, but more importantly detracts from what I like to do - umpire. I dont particularly care about having real input or getting involved with ASA on that level.

In sum, the chicken little predictions are just that - over reaction. Wait and see. I'm sure like me we will both work many tourneys this summer.. I would lay odds that little changes from last year or the year before in execution of the game.

IF there are major problems, ASA can revisit it either next year or even on an emergency basis.

In any case, there will not be an American Dodgeball Assoc. this year on the softball field. Bad calls.. probably.. attempts by coaches to stretch it or want more.. probably, not Dodgeball though. That is hyperbole that has little merit IMO.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

That is hyperbole that has little merit IMO.

What hyperbole does? That is was hype is obvious. That is was not a serious comparison was also obvious. At least I thought so.

You made a defense of the rule wording change in another thread whereby you stated that it would change the way interference was SUPPOSED to be called. Yet, the NUS says no change. Yet, you think it is good. Go figure. Your thread nearly makes my case on this.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by Dakota

What hyperbole does? That is was hype is obvious. That is was not a serious comparison was also obvious. At least I thought so.

You made a defense of the rule wording change in another thread whereby you stated that it would change the way interference was SUPPOSED to be called. Yet, the NUS says no change. Yet, you think it is good. Go figure. Your thread nearly makes my case on this.

Dammit, I have to deal with lawyers all the time...and come here to get away from all that crap and there is a "whereby" in here.

If we have any "whereas," I will f'n scream.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

What hyperbole does? That is was hype is obvious. That is was not a serious comparison was also obvious. At least I thought so.

Whereas it was the sine qua non of your argument (hows that bkb ) against the change, I addressed it as overreach it was.

You made a defense of the rule wording change in another thread whereby you stated that it would change the way interference was SUPPOSED to be called. Yet, the NUS says no change. Yet, you think it is good. Go figure. Your thread nearly makes my case on this.

It HAS changed the way it is presented in scenario and worded. It will change the way it is called. The NUS is full of crap IMO because this is a case where they are saying one thing and putting out written info as another. Maybe that would be a better argument than "dodge ball", but thats not the argument you made.

[wadeintothem]

Are you still accepting pics on the umpire site?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Re: INT
I was with you in Knee Jerk reaction to the change.. youre standing fast with the knee jerk reaction making estimations I doubt will come to fruition on any appreciable level.

It already has, or haven't you been paying attention to the threads and clips on a few boards.

With ASA, I am not particularly a "company man". I hate the fact they have turned me into a walking ASA billboard..

Say what? Even though the NCAA's official uniform is plain, do you see the umpires in their championships? What is wrong with an organization placing their name and/or logo on their uniform? Does a UPS, Fed/Ex, Aramark, Hooter's or thousands of other business concerns place their name and/or logo on their uniforms? I'm sorry, but this is just plain whining.

In sum, the chicken little predictions are just that - over reaction. Wait and see. I'm sure like me we will both work many tourneys this summer.. I would lay odds that little changes from last year or the year before in execution of the game.

No, if you want chicken little check with the Dept. of Homeland Security.

In any case, there will not be an American Dodgeball Assoc. this year on the softball field. Bad calls.. probably.. attempts by coaches to stretch it or want more.. probably, not Dodgeball though. That is hyperbole that has little merit IMO.

If the local associations do their job, you are correct.

However, I've already been involved in league and player meetings where this has already been raised, FP & SP. Many players and coaches honestly believe the rule now gives the defense the right-of-way anytime throwing the ball and if that is not corrected from day one, it just may turn into dodgeball on some fields.

Again, something that many seem to forget. Though the rules are for Championship Play, they are used throughout the country at all levels and there are many umpires that do not get the opportunity to attend good clinics and don't bother to work at getting the job done right. There are also some who do attend clinics, but believe THEIR way is better than whomever's and proceed to call all their games based on Joe Blow's Official Rules of Softball. This is where the problems are going to occur.

But it doesn't stop there. These same teams travel to other areas and when they run into good umpires who know how to call the game and properly apply the rules, they think they are being shafted by ASA when, in fact, it was the Joe Blow Umpire Assn. who set the teams up for failure.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It already has, or haven't you been paying attention to the threads and clips on a few boards..

IMO, there has been no more confusion about INT than in the past and no more trouble with INT calls than in the past.

Say what? Even though the NCAA's official uniform is plain, do you see the umpires in their championships? What is wrong with an organization placing their name and/or logo on their uniform? Does a UPS, Fed/Ex, Aramark, Hooter's or thousands of other business concerns place their name and/or logo on their uniforms? I'm sorry, but this is just plain whining.

It was just whining, IMO, similar to the article - which presented no argument of worth to debate. The arguments are being made in this thread - they were not made in the article.

However, I've already been involved in league and player meetings where this has already been raised, FP & SP. Many players and coaches honestly believe the rule now gives the defense the right-of-way anytime throwing the ball and if that is not corrected from day one, it just may turn into dodgeball on some fields.

Good, you are doing your job then. That does not mean that on the field we are going to see "dodgeball".

Again, something that many seem to forget. Though the rules are for Championship Play, they are used throughout the country at all levels and there are many umpires that do not get the opportunity to attend good clinics and don't bother to work at getting the job done right. There are also some who do attend clinics, but believe THEIR way is better than whomever's and proceed to call all their games based on Joe Blow's Official Rules of Softball. This is where the problems are going to occur.

But it doesn't stop there. These same teams travel to other areas and when they run into good umpires who know how to call the game and properly apply the rules, they think they are being shafted by ASA when, in fact, it was the Joe Blow Umpire Assn. who set the teams up for failure.

I agree Mike, there will be idiot umps and more importantly idiot coaches who will mess this rule change up.

I was simply addressing the article, as he requested - which did nothing by way of addressing the issues with the rule change.

It's a rule change - I think the NUS is in "first year rule change mitigation mode" with presenting it verbally as "not a rule change" and then it will/has been expanded with written case plays showing this is most definately a rule change.

I dont mind the rule change because there are unintentionally (read: boneheaded/incorrect actions) things players can do to INT and this rule change holds them accountable. IMO, thats how it should be.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Are you still accepting pics on the umpire site?

Well, it is a free site, but it has not quite used up the allowed storage. If necessary, I can always reduce size of pics already there, remove some of the multiple pics of the same person, etc. Email 'em to me and I can upload them to the site. Are they pics of you?

I've sent you a PM on the eteamz site with my email address.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

...the article - which presented no argument of worth to debate. The arguments are being made in this thread - they were not made in the article.... - which did nothing by way of addressing the issues with the rule change.....

Well, there is nothing to prevent you from starting your own thread to debate things you think are "worthy", but my article was not about the rule per se. It presented as an assumed truth that the interference rule adjustment was wrong-headed. You may want to debate that assertion, but that is a different topic. Because ASA changed the batter's box and then had to do an emergency rule change after the player's revolted (or something) and since the ASA removed "intent" from most interference rules, apparently oblivious to the actual real-world softball being played outside of "Champtionship Play", then I suggested their rule change process was broken.

That is the title of the article, and the point it was making - the ASA rule change process is broken since it has produced these results in 2007.

If you want to debate the interference rule, feel free, but don't try to look at an article about something else and then say it doesn't present any positions about that. No sh-t, Sherlock.

[NCASAUmp]

Did ASA even experiment with the expanded SP batter's box? Or was it just as Mike said: a few brainiacs who pushed it through?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Did ASA even experiment with the expanded SP batter's box? Or was it just as Mike said: a few brainiacs who pushed it through?

If there was an experiment, it was done by a local association. I wouldn't doubt that if it did occur, it was in an area where the 16" game is played with expanded boxes.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If there was an experiment, it was done by a local association. I wouldn't doubt that if it did occur, it was in an area where the 16" game is played with expanded boxes.

And probably mandatory helmets for the first and third basemen

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, there is nothing to prevent you from starting your own thread to debate things you think are "worthy", but my article was not about the rule per se. It presented as an assumed truth that the interference rule adjustment was wrong-headed. You may want to debate that assertion, but that is a different topic. Because ASA changed the batter's box and then had to do an emergency rule change after the player's revolted (or something) and since the ASA removed "intent" from most interference rules, apparently oblivious to the actual real-world softball being played outside of "Champtionship Play", then I suggested their rule change process was broken.

That is the title of the article, and the point it was making - the ASA rule change process is broken since it has produced these results in 2007.

If you want to debate the interference rule, feel free, but don't try to look at an article about something else and then say it doesn't present any positions about that. No sh-t, Sherlock.

Fair enough.. I did misunderstand the intent of the article as a whole. So as to the article, I change my argument to "objection, lack of foundation."