Proposed Rule Changes, ASA?
 

Okay, it's that time of year.

Anyone have any <b>reasonable</b> suggestions for a rule changes for the coming year?

Possible considerations already on paper:

Metal spikes for all 18U FP;
43' pitching for all 18U FP;
Eliminating requirement for pitcher to "wipe" their fingers after going to the mouth, FP & MP;
70' bases for adult SP;
No taping of the bat knob.

Any ideas?

Yeah, either 320 feet fences, or return to wood bats.

Proposed Rule Changes, ASA?
 

Whats more reasonable than to ban whining, crying, or basically players in general.

Try again to bring the interfering with a D3K by the BR rule in line with all other interference rules for a runner.

Allow an appeal for an advantageous 4th out on any runner, not just the one who scored.

Add a companion to the metal cleats proposal for a definition of an illegal slide and the penalty - out and ejected, if breaking up a DP, runner being played on is also out.

53' or 55' pitching distance for all mens and womens sp

The D3K INT by BR is already in line with the other rules, and that is the problem.

That was an in-house change in 2003 and I doubt I can get that by because of all the variables ways umpires around the country will apply it (i.e. run scores before the a runner is tagged out for the 3rd out and the BR never touches 1B. I can see an umpire ruling the BR out for entering DBT on an appeal)Those already exist in an umpire's ability to rule USC. However, a definition of "slide" is probably in order.

53 feet for all slow pitch...and when there are multiple pitcher's plates present (how is THAT for alliteration?), umpires figure out which is the RIGHT one and make CERTAIN pitchers pitch properly, distance-wise.

I absolutely HATE it when I hear "all the other umpires let us pitch from up there." And I know this problem is NOT restricted to our little outpost.

Modify 8-7.J.4 to protect a defender attempting to catch a deflected ball that stays in the air and thus is a flyball.

Also - this rule says "all" defenders; however the original defender that deflected (bobbled, kicked, booted, etc.) should still have a reasonable opportunity to make a play. Codify the generally accepted "step and a reach" umpire judgment. This allows the defender to make an immediate play, but does not protect them if they must travel 5' or 10' or whatever to reach their deflected ball.

WMB

I agree with defining a legal slide in the rules. Might help to create some consistency between umpires for INT calls.

Longer distances for the SP pitcher's plate might also be in order. 50' is terribly close to HP with the bats that are used today.

Also, I had posted a thread a while back about a player who, while running the bases, is ejected (or who should be ejected). Should we allow a runner to score after they've committed USC? Or should an out be called? Another thread was posted along the same lines for a runner who hockey-checks the catcher while there is no play being made on them, though I can't find it.

Rule already protects the defender on such a play. A batted ball is a batted ball, on the ground or in the air.

Actually, it says "any" defender. Wouldn't that also include the defender which initially touched the batted ball? There is no exception for the player who misplayed the ball. While the "step and reach" makes sense to some level, do you think it is right to give the fielder carte blanche if the runner was trying to avoid interference?

Maybe the rule is right, it's just a matter of how we teach it. ATLSteve, what do you think?

Well, I think that's already covered in the rules. If they pitch from the wrong plate, then it's an IP. If the players don't know which plate to pitch from and they don't ask us, that's their problem. Some umps may mention it during the pre-game conference.

Since my opinion was requested, here's my $.02.

Over the years, many ASA rule changes have resulted in the book being a bit fragmented, and difficult to follow. Those of us who have been around and actively followed and/or participated (Mike and I, as two) know what the rules mean, or are expected to mean; but, the simple truth is that the ASA Rule Book, including the Rules Supplements and Umpire Manual explanations, is now a very complicated document. It would be so much better if someone would undertake to rewrite the entire book, from scratch, editors who know what the rules are, what the rules mean, and have less personally invested than prior administrations.

The newest (2007) NFHS rules made the definition of an "initial play" on a batted ball much clearer than ASA current wording. I agree with Mike that the rules are there, and the same; just not as clear. And, so it is with other rules, substitution/BOO/unreported subs/illegal players, running lane interference (without referencing a good throw to a waiting receiver), the "shall hold the hands together for not less than one second" that is, by interpretation to be less than one second, the strike zone definition of armpits that can't be used, and so forth. So many rulings in the casebook don't appear to be fully supported by the wording of the rules. So many casebook rulings are clearly different than the initial intent of rules, but now exist because the wording of the rules fails to properly cover that situation. (Example, the discredited ruling that a flagrant crash is always also interference, and must include an out.) Conversely, I find the NCAA rulebook to be so wordy and redundant that it works better for administrators than umpires, coaches, or players.

So, this really isn't about new rules; it is about the quality, readability, and comprehension-capability of the rulebook. Mike and I get it; we attend National UIC Clinics, National Council meetings, Playing Rules Committee meetings, multiple rules clinics, anything to better understand so we teach the correct things. Mike sticks with ASA, only; in my area, I am on the training staffs of both ASA and GHSA (our high school). So, we have to get it; and we have to teach it.

But, the reality is that a huge number of umpires don't get it, don't attend the clinics, or hardly pay attention. Their daily tool is their rulebook; and it isn't as good a tool as it could (or should) be. The poor wording of some rules (and the clear absence of proper interpretations) is the front line to too many umpires. Add to that, the few coaches who actually read their rulebook also cannot get the actual rulings and interpretations from the rulebook. That isn't good; and, short of a complete editorial rewrite, I doubt it can be fixed. Beyond that, I seriously doubt that a compete editorial rewrite would be approved to be undertaken.

So, (in summary), I agree with Mike that the rules are there; I also agree with others who suggest the rules aren't clearly there.

(Snip for brevity)

I agree that some are not written well for the casual reader. As Steve noted, we are so involved through participation in arenas not normally available to most umpires, we get a bit more information. Where the breakdown comes into play is that many of those responsible for training umpires at the local level do not always convey purpose and effect.

What I really don't want to see is a scenario specific rule book. I fear that once that begins, we will end up with a tome that will actually cause more confusion and less reference by the local umpire. Yes, not every rule is absolute and fair, but they are not difficult to learn and enforce. Many of the problems involving umpires involves laziness. Many umpires barely break the book and attend maybe one clinic and rely on that as a full-scale reference. Well, if you want a clinic that detail, you will need more than a weekend.

Another problem with attempting to become more specific is that certain situations get overlooked and leave a gap in the rules. A perfect example is the D3K with two outs and 1B unoccupied. In an effort to word the rule properly so people understood the exception to the third strike rule w/two outs, the obvious was overlooked and omitted from the book. Even when discovered it took two years to get it corrected.

Personally, I don't think the rules as written are that difficult to comprehend, but you all know how anal I am about the rules. I do believe that umpires get themselves into trouble when they read a rule and look for specifics instead of just applying the rule and leave the "what ifs" out of the thought process.

BTW, as I understand it, the deputy supervisors have been tasked to review the rules.

Mike, I'll agree with you to a point. The ASA rules, as written, are without a doubt very wordy and border on "legalese." The first few times I read the book, I honestly got very little information from it with regards to the rules (granted, I was 15, but I was pretty sharp back then - don't know what happened since...). There's almost no "flow" in the reading of the rules, which is where two things happen: umpires give up and simply glace through it, and coaches, thinking they understand it, give us umpires hell.

Case and point: after I called ASA rules for 2 years for one league, another org needed my help. This new organization used USSSA rules, back when it was still only Slo-Pitch (say around... 1995). The USSSA rules had a MUCH better flow to them, and I was able to get through the book with ease and comprehension. After reading the USSSA rules, I suddenly realized just what was going on - what you could do, what you couldn't do, and what the penalties were (since at the time, they were roughly the same, but worded only slightly differently). When I went back to calling leagues with ASA rules ('96), I went through the book again, and the picture was much clearer, though the waters were still murky. Even now, 14 and a half years after I called my first strike, I'm still finding that I am occasionally wrong.

A couple years ago, ASA went through and redid the majority of Rule 1. While I'm sure the ratification of the changes was no easy matter, I think the same thing can be done with the rest of the book to better lay out the rules for ALL to read and comprehend, not just those who are fortunate enough to attend a clinic or attend a Big Ten university.

If we fail to make the bulk of the rules crystal clear, we create problems for umpires who either can't understand a wordy rulebook, or are faced with coaches with the same problem. Let's not forget where the bulk of our umpires start out: in the small leagues where the only training available to them without driving 3 hours to a clinic is the rule book. Sad, but true.

And I'm in a small state, yet the training has always been some of the best. You have one of three problems: the local associations take an easy road and do not train their umpires, the umpires opt to not take advantage of the training available or everyone is apathetic because they are not being hand-fed the information.

The training is available. The Biennial Nat. UIC Clinic is open to any ASA umpire (endoresed by their commissioner). Does it cost a few bucks? Yep, but isn't it worth it to an association to have someone get the skinny and tools to provide the proper training?

Sorry, but the training and tools I get and use are available to any umpire or association out there. If there is a deficiency in training local umpires, it is that of the association, not anyone else. That, too, is sad, but true.

BTW, I don't see many problems with the rules or the manner in which they are presented, but as previously stated, I'm an anal rule-book type of person.

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.

I would recommend two changes off the top of my head:

1. Reverse the rule change of a couple of years ago that prohibits fourth-out appeals on runners who have not scored. Go back to the old way and get in line with every other code. Why shouldn't the defense be able to appeal the BR's miss of first (or failure to run to 1B) after 3 out simply because the BR did not score?

2. To prevent the play on which a runner or BR can commit deliberate interference and gain an advantage for his team, insert language to this effect: "If such interference occurs before the BR reaches 1B, all runners return TOP. In no event shall bases be runs or runs score, etc." I would also follow OBR and consider a runner who has crossed the plate before INT on a catch to be the runner closest to home plate.

That's exactly why I brought it up. I was working a league's championship game last week and getting a LOT of grief about one pitcher consistantly "hitting the ceiling". I wasn't calling any IP's on him. In about the 3rd inning, I used the 2006 mechanic, and holy $h!t... those pitches were well above 12 feet.

(Consequently, my next issue was trying to tell that F1 why I was now calling IP's more often. He finally brought them down.)

Then you need to pass that on to Wild Bill, because no one was listening to me about this.

Done. :)

I would like to see a change to the hit batter rule. Take the "must make an attempt" out of the rule.

Make it black and white. If you are hit in the batters box, dead ball batter is awarded first base.

If the batter is hit by a pitch in the strike zone, Dead Ball Strike, no base awarded.

You're kidding, right? Who are you, the president of the Ron Hunt Fan Club?

You'll have more batters leaning into a pitch, eventually someone will be seriously injured and a load of people getting sued.

If B1 is hit by the pitch in the strike zone,it already is a strike,dead ball,and no base awarded.

Jeff

Me too. I want to see more umpires have the gonads to make 'em stay in the batters box when they don't attempt to move out of the way.:eek:

How about reviewing the rule that covers running home runs out in Mens SP? In Major and A - they do not run them. In B and C they do. Why?

This rule is being inconsistently being enforced by umpires, leagues and tournaments. Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. Sometimes they actually tell the teams how they are going to enforce it and sometimes they don't which only guarantees problems.

Simplify it.....All divisions - do not run out home runs.

What "major"? The reason they do not run them is a time-saving issue that does not exist at the lower levels. And if an umpire does not enforce it, shame on them. Those are the ones causing the issue, not the rule.

For the record, I'm a player coach in this situation who has played long enough to remember running them all out regardless of the level.

Good point on "major". I think it still says "major" in the book relative to this rule however.

My main point isn't so much relevant to what umpires do. It's the rule itself and the fact that tournaments and leagues throughout the country set it aside at their convenience. Then we go to the National and all the sudden it's enforced and I gotta tell you, that rule has teeth. In our case, we did not know the rule (please don't reply "well you should have") and it was not covered in ground rules or the managers meeting. So we reverted to what we always do and lost a two run homer as a result.

I think its selectively (intentionally or unintentionally) enforced at all levels which leads to problems. Do we really want teams to lose earned runs in a national tournament as a result of a rule that is only enforced one weekend a year??

If you want to keep it fine, but how about adding that as an item to be reviewed during ground rules. We cover run rules and home run limits....how about making sure everyone knows to run em out. Or....just drop it and quit running them out. Why should B & C be any different than A in this regard?

Well, you sh.....okay :)

That's because it is not a ground rule, nor a special rule that needs to be covered.

Your issue is with your local tournaments/leagues. Personally, I don't know what the big deal is about running out a ball you hit over the fence for a run.

I'm sorry, but I cannot answer this any other way.

The rule is the rule. It hasn't changed for a couple years. The only ones at fault here is your team. There is nothing selective about it. The only time the rule can be "officially" discarded is by a tournament director as a speed-up rule in an attempt to complete a tournament delayed by weather or some other reason out of the TD's control.

Your issue is with those who CHANGE the rule at their discretion, not those whom abide by it without exception. Just because something happens in your area or games does not mean it happens everywhere. I can tell you that I've never allowed players to not run out home runs unless that classification was permitted by rule which would be the Exception to 4.3.

Again, it is not a ground rule or a special rule. Why is B & C different? What about D, are they not the same? As I stated earlier, it is a speed-up rule meant to deal with a select few, not the masses.

Of course, every time a runner is not required to run the bases on a HR, the defense loses anywhere from four to ten possible opportunities to get an out.

I know this isn't the answer you wanted to hear, but it's the only one available.

Well - D doesn't get any home runs so no, they aren't relevant to this issue :)

I'll agree to disagree with you. Not a "ground rule", ok....other rules that are flexible to local situations ARE reviewed before every game. 12 after 5, 20 after 4 etc. Why not this rule then if you are enforcing it?

When a relatively high percentage of the games are being played WITHOUT this rule throughout the country, I think it's time to look at why we are still using it in the national tournaments.

But they do locally and in many tournament!!! ;) Just kidding

Again, the change is locally and I don't believe the percentage is as high as you think. I've got plenty of experience at the higher national level and don't ever remember covering any book rule at the pregame meeting unless specifically asked about it by the manager. An exception to that would be if requested by the TD through the UIC that each umpire cover something specific in the pre-game and that is often exceptions to a rule for this tournament only, not the rule as written.

Stealing is a rule which is more likely not used at the local league level, but I've never addressed that either unless asked specifically by a manager at the pregame.

It isn't the umpire's job to give teams a rules clinic. These are umpires from around the country and they do not know what happens in your area. If you have a beef, it is with your local folds or tournament directors. They are the ones doing you a disservice and placing your team in jeopardy. Most of the time, the TD allows things simply because it's what the players want.

When I have players complain about running the bases on a HR, it usually involves (like you did) that the upper levels don't have to, whiy should I?

Here is where I get confused. You have players who buy expensive bats that make HR hitters out of anyone, want a postage stamp strike zone as a batter (just like they think the big boys have), they don't want to run out HR (like the big boys), they talk $hit like they are all superstars, but when it comes down to playing for a title, most of these guys cannot find a classification low enough to trophy hunt.

What it comes down to is that the rules are the rules. They are printed and a book is distributed to every team which registers. There are umpire rule clinic all over the country which you could probably attend. However, when it comes to game time, it is time to play ball, not give a rules clinic. Read the book, make yourself aware of the rules which affect your team and attend a clinic or two. Hell, try umpiring, you may like it. I KNOW you will learn more as long as you go into it with an open mind and it will improve your game as a player, guaranteed.

Good luck

I don't disagree and I'm not suggesting that.

EXACTLY - So why not make sure we are ALL on the same page. I guarantee this was covered in the umpires meeting! Why not make sure we are ALL on the same page??

I don't disagree that this starts locally. But look at it from my side of the coin - In Cincinnati, ASA registers more teams than several states combined. We are talking thousands of games being played before the nationals and none of them use this rule. Isn't it therefore reasonable that teams from our area could fall into this problem? Actually, I know 3 teams that did. For the quality of play, why would you NOT want to address this? You mentioned stealing - when stealing is NOT permitted, umps mention it in ground rules. Why cant this be any different just the other way around?

Actually - that wasn't my main point and its not about upper level envy - its about consistency of a rule for essentially the same sport and preventative officiating. Its not a rule in A but is in B & C and logically that doesn't make sense.


Here is where I get confused....why is it that an attempt to talk about possible ASA rule changes reverts to a bat discussion by the guy who started the conversation? I never once suggested that I was a superstar or that I wanted to be like Brett Helmer. I actually am here as a coach of a team that is one of the few teams left from Cincinnati that is trying to still play ASA nationally when the lion share of teams are going USSSA if they want to play in Nationals and Worlds. What frustrates me is you have an attitude that we are ALL a bunch of sh$t talking fat a$$ beer drinking wannabe bomb hitters rather than interacting with me as a coach or participant in the sport. If the disposition towards men's slow pitch within ASA leadership is similar to yours - WHY BOTHER?



If you ask for rule changes and a particpant offers one, Why play the old "read the book and go to class" card? Is that the best you can do? Are you really so narrow minded that you are unwilling to even consider the fact that this rule affects teams unnecessarily. You are willing as an organization to modify it for the "big boys"....what was the justification there? Because the teams wanted it right?. I don't disagree that we should know the rules but again, you are missing the point - In my opinion, which you will obviously will never agree with the opinion of a beer drinking bomb hitting sh$t talker....but nonetheless, the ASA can and should do a better job with how they handle this specific rule since it is being selectively enforced. You can call it what you want....local rules, umps doing the wrong thing....TDs giving in to pressure from teams.....Bottom line - Its inconsistent from my point of view as a coach.

I'll give you the last word because my beer is getting warm.

Piching Change Proposal
 

Y'all
{Okay I meant Pitching in the title but you cannot edit that}
If that's how you say it over the 'Pond' I have a really brilliant proposal that I wish both ASA and ISF to talk about but it is about 3 pages long.
How can I attach it to the forum?

If not shall I just copy and paste!!

I've don't ever recall having such a discussion in the umpire's meeting. I'm sure it may somewhere, but probably only when an umpire makes a comment about a local rule for effect.

Okay, you are still talking about what is done locally. You guys have a big program and I'm familiar with a couple umpires from that area, but other than the size and level of play, we didn't discuss any local rules before going on the field, nor did we cover them in ground rules. Maybe it's the level of tournaments I've worked where it just isn't an issue.

Actually, the rule wasn't changed for the players, but as a deterant of the player's rituals.

Okay, I went off subject. I'll try not to go off again.

That isn't necessarily so. I'm well aware of the SP program and probably one of the biggest defenders of the game. Don't believe me, ask everyone else on this board how I react when someone makes a comment like you did above. People who want to be better and play the game as you profess to be are not the problem. It's the wannabes and trophy hunters and the fat a$$, $hit talking idiots. They are dragging the game down with their BS and it hurts everyone.
No, that isn't why. It was modified to keep the game moving. It was originally changed when the supers were still around and has descended with the highest level of ASA play. The rule was changed to keep the players in the dugout. A HR used to take nearly 4-5 minutes because the dugout would empty as the player "trotted" around the bases. At the plate, everyone had to slap this or bump that. By the time everyone got back into the dugout, you could have finished an inning in some games. Even now where the highest level is limited to 8 HRs, if this practiced continued, just running out the 16 HRs would encompass one hour of playing time if you could hold it down to 3-4 minutes. Without running the HR, a player is back in the dugout and the next batter in the box usually in less than a minute.

Let me ask you this (Chuck will get you another cold one). ASA's rules are specifically for "championship play." Shouldn't the person/group altering the rules be the ones resonsible for educating those who play under them? ASA only has one set of rules used in all their tournaments. Alterations are made without their knowledge and vary depending on where you are standing in the country.

In some areas, teams play using a full count, 4-3. Other parts of the country use a 3-2 count. Yet in another, it is a 3-2 count with a courtesy foul. This same area may force the player to run out all home runs. Five hundred miles away, walk off, but in the next town, the rule is touch one base and walk off (BTW, one of the dumbest things I've ever heard). In CA, they may use a mat for balls and strikes. Somewhere else, a ball that hits the plate is a strike. Some places allow a team to use two EPs, or even bat the bench. Some will allow teams to play shorthanded by more than a single player while others will not impose the out for a missing player in the batting order. Some areas have adopted the 2nd plate and commit line.

There are at least another dozen possible variations of pretty standard rules, but the point is, how would ASA know where to start? Maybe they will cover issues that satisfy your needs, but not the next guy's because they are unaware of what is being done in their home town or league.

It would require a clinic to cover everything and that is asking a lot of a crew.

Not a rule change, but I would like to see this added as #6 to the Umpire-to-Umpire Communications, currently found on page 208.

I don't think it will happen, but I think it is a good mechanic.