I'm not denying that there are those umpires who simply want to read the rules, call a few games for some extra beer money, then call it a season. That's said without question. We have very good training in our area (state clinics are held only +/- 20 minutes from where I live and are open to all with a few extra bucks - $10, if I remember right), and we are fortunate to have good leadership here as well. And yes, there are many umpires who might attend one rules clinic and think, "that's all I need." Can they become good umpires? Maybe.

However, for those umpires who live a few hours away from the nearest clinic and only want to call a few local rec games, but call them right, those options are limited. The word about clinics may never reach them, and they are stuck with only the rulebook to serve as a guide. When I first started, I was never told anything about rules clinics, and as a result, I didn't REALLY start learning the rules up until the last 6 or 7 years. I thought I knew them, but reality was that I did not. I'll freely admit that.

The point I'm trying to drive home is: why is the rule book so difficult for many to follow? Why can't it clearly and concisely spell out what is required of the sport's participants? Is my memory hazy, or didn't the rules once actually spell out the intent of the rule in a small grey box (or maybe I'm mixing up the old ASA rules from USSSA)?

Mike, I'm not trying to single you out here, but you have been fortunate enough to see an aspect of the rules that most umpires will take many years to acquire. Clinics are a great tool, but in my opinion, the first place an umpire starts when they first decide to put on the uniform is the book. Clinics, unfortunately, are often an after-thought. Being excessively wordy only serves to confuse the reader, thus putting the new umpire at a disadvantage. The rules are complicated, as evidenced by the many well-intentioned questions we post here.

No, believe it or not, we have a sizeable number of umpires who don't know (or don't care) which plate they pitch from.

I tell 'em before they start. If they pitch from somewhere else, well, guess what buddy, it's Ball 1.

And I fault whomever registered you as an umpire for that. It doesn't take that much to provide a clinic. Does it include a little traveling by the UIC or DUIC? Yeah, but shouldn't training the local umpires be part of their job? If they didn't want to be bothered, then maybe they shouldn't hold the position.

And my point is I don't think they are as difficult as many believe. I think what makes them difficult are people trying to "beat" the rules or looking for a hole in them instead of just applying them as presented. Don't get me wrong, there are certain rules that, in my mind, are questionable and some have been changed due to activity on this and other boards.

Again, that is a regional issue. In some areas, an umpire doesn't see the field or uniform until they have a few "new umpire" clinics under their belt. In my area, it is five nights and the availability of a state school (which is required within the first three years).

Yet that is what is being requested here.

Then maybe you need to get involved as an officer of your local association and arrange for better training. Just because something happens in your corner of the world, it doesn't mean that is the way it is everywhere, just as I'm KNOW the way we do things here is not the same around the nation.

But enough about that, what I requested was ideas for rule changes, or code changes if you know of one you believe needs to be adjusted.

Yes, I agree, we're getting off-topic. We could probably badger this subject to death, but this thread would suffer. Let's get some more rule change suggestions!

Thanks, Mike, for opening this line of communication with ASA to those of us on the front lines.

As one who has a history of criticizing the ASA rule book on editorial grounds (everything from poking fun to expressing annoyance to pointing out what I think are actual problems with understandable writing), I want to say that even IF it was realistic to ask for a complete editorial re-write of the ASA book, I don't think it is necessary, AND I don't think it can be assumed it would be an improvement.

Making the rule book too situation-specific in the name of clarity turns it into a case book. We have one of those, and it is quite good (but it does need to be re-numbered in rule 8 - it's been years, now, guys - and it does need to have someone or several someones whose job is to review the case book each year for consistency with the rules changes).

As to the issue of clarity / purpose of the rule, those kinds of things can be effectively addressed in the RS/POE section.

In one of my poking fun comments about the ASA rule book, can anyone answer the question of whether a pitcher is required to pitch before the end of the inning and cite the rule? ;)

Totally possible! If 3 consecutive batters fail to appear at bat (malarial outbreak, anyone?), you've got three outs, and no pitches thrown. ;)

ASA:
7.4.J times nine.
7.6.B times three.

I'm sure there's more...

Let me clarify... I'm not asking if it is possible, but where is the rule that specifically says that. Hint: that is not what the rule actually MEANS, only what it SAYS.

Suggestion
 

Get rid of the 16U and 18U divisions, merge them into one larger pool, and give it a name. . . majors division. . . . or something along those lines. These kids already play together in high school. Keep the Gold separate. The only draw back I see is those young girls that would play up into the 16U division.


Blu

Define SPECIFICALLY how an umpire should treat the Flex batting in the fictitious 10-hole. Yes - after we hash it out here for days, we can get everyone who happens to read this to understand it ... but either a clearer specific rule to cover this case, or at the very least an AR or caseplay would be of great benefit to those who don't live on this board like we do, and come across that in the semifinal of a tourney for the first time.

Don't think that would elicit a rule change, but I agree it should be addressed somewhere. I'll raise the issue.

I just thought of a mechanic change that I'd like to see go back. (I know, the topic says "Rules"...)

The new mechanic of the slow pitch plate umpire going set when the pitch starts. I find it more difficult to judge the height of the pitch as consistently as before this year, when up then moving down to track it into the zone.

I second this........ bad mechanics change

Agreed.

Had that discussion in OKC last February. This apparently came from the national staff and my opinion wasn't really received well. One member was available for discussion (actually, he is often very open and willing to discuss anything). We didn't agree, but at least he was willing to discuss it.

I have yet to hear anyone who has tried to use it tell me they like it. I expect to hear it, now that I mentioned it. However, I doubt that person(s) would be the type to keep a strict line on height.

The new mechanic contradicts everything taught about calling IPs and the strike zone as it relates to consistency. An umpire which goes to the proper set position loses any consitency of viewing the pitch because not all batters are of the same height. From what I have observed of the umpires trying to use the mechanic, IPs just disappeared unless the pitch was extremely high.