Double swing

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Come on, Mr. ASA - you are denying what your own people have written. Someone somewhere in ASA heirarchy deliberately wrote that it is illegal to hit the ball on a second swing. There has to be a reason (does there really?) for ASA to write that statement.

Which has what to do with the point that the issue under discussion is that there wasn't two swings?

On a 60 mph pitch that reaches the plate in less than a half second, there is no way in hell that a batter can wait until "the ball was actually there for the bat to strike" and swing twice and actually hit the ball. Obviously, the swing has to start early so as to get the bat around a second time. Fact is, the bat swing has to start before the pitch is even released.

Thank you for proving the point. How can the initial movement of the bat be considered a swing if the ball hasn't even been released yet?

And if the batter is really good enough to hit the ball on the second swing, ASA says that is illegal - strike on the batter and return base runners.

WBM

Again, this is not the discussion. My part of this discussion has been completely along the premise of what constitutes a swing, not that there was more than one.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Second "swing".... not second time the bat is moved. There is no requirement for the bat to remain stationary before the first swing.

I agree, Dakota.
Preliminary swings are not swings at a pitch.
Perhaps WMB has merely been fishing, ...I hope.

[WestMichBlue]

You guys are offering your personal opinions, but you are missing my point.

WHY did ASA write that sentence? Why did they say "hit the ball on the second swing?" It is impossible to wait for the ball to reach a hitable zone and then swing twice. So what is ASA ruling against?

WMB

[mick]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

You guys are offering your personal opinions, but you are missing my point.

WHY did ASA write that sentence? Why did they say "hit the ball on the second swing?" It is impossible to wait for the ball to reach a hitable zone and then swing twice. So what is ASA ruling against?

WMB

WMB,

A possible scenario:

Waiting for a fastball the size of a pea, the batter makes an offer, but checks when the batter sees a fall-outa-your-umpire-stance change-up the size of a beachball and recocks and offers a second time.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

You guys are offering your personal opinions, but you are missing my point.

WHY did ASA write that sentence? Why did they say "hit the ball on the second swing?" It is impossible to wait for the ball to reach a hitable zone and then swing twice. So what is ASA ruling against?

WMB

Remember, the rules cover all games, not just FP.

[wadeintothem]

I'm set, pitcher is begining a pitch, catcher is set and she swings.. bringing the bat around and grabbing it with her other hand.

This swing is dismissed as yet another practice swing and the "real" swing is when she bunts.

Conceivably the batter could continuously perform this new Delaware Helicopter Swing and never stop swinging once in the box because until the ball is actually hittable, many dont believe its a swing by rule.

This may be true by reading the rule book.. because at best it is unclear. I can find no reasonable definition of a swing and any alluding to such would not address swinging before the pitch at least is hittable.

But that is a BS method of batting so perhaps ASA needs to address it.

Thats the best I can find with a honest reading.. similar to gorilla gold.. ASA has no rule on it.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And this from someone who lives in a state where people build houses on cliffs and hillsides only to have them slide into the ocean or valley after a good rain and then are dumb enough to rebuild on the same site.

Who cares, makes for cool video.

A state which does not allow people to enter forests to clear naturally downed timber and then cannot figure out what stokes the horrendous fires which kill people and causes billions of dollars in lost property.

Well you've probably never been in a forest, but as someone who has lived in it virtually his entire life including right now.. thats incorrect Mike. Its the undergrowth that the libs snivel about burning off thats the problem, not the downed trees. This layer upon layer of underbrush and growth once it goes causes a raging fire which is enough to catch the trees on fire.. as opposed to a healthy forest where undergrowth should burn without necessarily causing a forest fire.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Well you've probably never been in a forest,

I'll remember that the next time on the App trail, or hanging out in the Banner Elk, NC area, or up around Franconia, NH or maybe...well, never mind, you get the idea.

but as someone who has lived in it virtually his entire life including right now.. thats incorrect Mike. Its the undergrowth that the libs snivel about burning off thats the problem, not the downed trees. This layer upon layer of underbrush and growth once it goes causes a raging fire which is enough to catch the trees on fire.. as opposed to a healthy forest where undergrowth should burn without necessarily causing a forest fire.

I agree and maybe it is the area and climate. What I have always witnessed in my 50+ years is that mother nature is pretty good at taking care of herself when allowed. Even in dense areas, leaves, needles and twigs are scattered or breakdown. However, when fallen branches and other timber are allowed to remain, they trap nature's debris. I have to believe that these type of collection areas are what causes the high-intensity fires to sustain their life in areas where that should not happen. Clearing the downed timber will help mother nature and it would happen at no cost to any government agency.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

But that is a BS method of batting so perhaps ASA needs to address it.

Thats the best I can find with a honest reading.. similar to gorilla gold.. ASA has no rule on it.

ASA does address gorilla gold under the foreign substance portion of rule 7.

Do you suggest that the rules must be changed every time someone comes up with a little gimick? I believe most of the confusion comes from people reading too much into situations.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Do you suggest that the rules must be changed every time someone comes up with a little gimick?

If they want consistancy of interpretation, I would suggest a bit more consistant wording. If they bring confusion to those as studied as the attendees of this board, how can the average rec umpire be expected to properly interpret.

I think ASA should perhaps start by adding "Delaware Helicopter Swing" to the definitions section. (If it was wadeintothem that coined this, kudos.)

[mick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I agree and maybe it is the area and climate. What I have always witnessed in my 50+ years is that mother nature is pretty good at taking care of herself when allowed. Even in dense areas, leaves, needles and twigs are scattered or breakdown. However, when fallen branches and other timber are allowed to remain, they trap nature's debris. I have to believe that these type of collection areas are what causes the high-intensity fires to sustain their life in areas where that should not happen. Clearing the downed timber will help mother nature and it would happen at no cost to any government agency.

Mike.

This sounds like a metaphor for sports officiating.

Varying population densities
Allowing certain rules to slide in some areas
Poor rule enforcement perpetuating myths
Following guidelines in some regions may encourage others to follow suit.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

If they want consistancy of interpretation, I would suggest a bit more consistant wording. If they bring confusion to those as studied as the attendees of this board, how can the average rec umpire be expected to properly interpret.

I think ASA should perhaps start by adding "Delaware Helicopter Swing" to the definitions section. (If it was wadeintothem that coined this, kudos.)

What part of "California Drag Bunt" didn't anyone understand? I did not make this up. The routine and it's name has been around for a few years now. BTW, the softball in DE isn't good enough for players to pull arrogant stunts like this.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

ASA does address gorilla gold under the foreign substance portion of rule 7.

No, ASA does not address substances that are applied to the hands but will not transfer to the ball... hence the reason when facing Male pitchers, ASA doesnt have the rocks to stick to the rule book.. making it unclear.

Do you suggest that the rules must be changed every time someone comes up with a little gimick? I believe most of the confusion comes from people reading too much into situations.

Why yes, I do. I pay my 40 bucks a year for ASA folks to fly into okieville and do just that. In fact, the new GIMMICKS are far more important to address than changing rules IMO.

In between goofing with batter box sizes, changing wording of rules when ASA doesnt want them enforced differently (but word it differently)... I'm thinking the ASA could squeeze in some time to address these "gimmicks" and clarify unclear things.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

No, ASA does not address substances that are applied to the hands but will not transfer to the ball... hence the reason when facing Male pitchers, ASA doesnt have the rocks to stick to the rule book.. making it unclear.

The penalty is for applying a foreign substance to the ball. Those who use GG do so by applying it to the ball. FP pitchers will inject, yes, inject GG into their glove so it will ooze out onto the ball. It is not colorless, so it does appear on the ball. ASA addresses this issue.

As far as the hands, ASA also addresses application of a substance to the hands in the same rule. The only thing allowed to be applied is powdered resin. Unless GG is found to be a powdered resin, it is not allowed.

AFAIC, the licking of the fingers should be dropped from the rule. There is nothing gained by a pitcher who wets their fingers and goes to the ball without wiping them off.

Why yes, I do. I pay my 40 bucks a year for ASA folks to fly into okieville and do just that. In fact, the new GIMMICKS are far more important to address than changing rules IMO.

And when present rules do not apply, I would agree. Why do you think ASA uses the term "resin" insted of "rosin"? Many rules are intentionally vague to cover as many bends in a rule. BTW, your belief of paying for the council is not true, at least not in this area.

In between goofing with batter box sizes, changing wording of rules when ASA doesnt want them enforced differently (but word it differently)... I'm thinking the ASA could squeeze in some time to address these "gimmicks" and clarify unclear things.

Most of the issues you find on this and other boards are more often local UICs failing to provide the correct information and interpretations they are given. Perfect example would be the poster who prior to last year noted that his UIC told them to continue to call the "about to receive" on OBS instead of possession because he just didn't believe ASA meant to make that change.

Yes, sometimes things do not work out and are corrected. It happens and is usually the result of folks on the voting council not paying attention to the suggestion of the staff umpires. They look at the proposal and think it must be a good idea unless someone speaks out against it. Quite often, they just don't realize the repercussions of some proposed changes.