Brain Teaser question

[WestMichBlue]

Quote:

To say the rule could be worded better is a gross understatement. It is horribly worded! The mere fact that we're even talking about, what should be, an elementary substitution rule speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No, what this discussion is showing is that you are having a hard time comprehending a simple softball rule. It is an elementary substitution rule and your refusal to accept it speaks volumes. WTF is so hard to understand that a pitcher is no different from any other player on the team when it comes to substitutions or defensive positioning?

Instead of bashing each other, let's accept this sentence for what it is - another example of ASA's lousy literary skills.

The best way to comprehend the intent behind the rules is to follow them year after year. That way you pick up the nuances and word changes that someone new to the editorial staff creates.

From 1932 to about 1985 ASA substitution rules stated that each pitcher "must pitch until the first batter facing him has completed his turn at bat, the side has been retired or he has been removed from the game."

Now that is pretty simple; I think that anyone with a decent command of the English language can understand that sentence.

So when ASA decided to eliminate that requirement they added a note stating that "The pitcher no longer has to pitch until etc. etc. etc." So if you knew the rule the day before, this is easy to understand. Instead of must pitch, now its no longer has to pitch.

Ten years later ASA must have decided that everyone now knew the rule, so they dropped it. Just took it out of the book and let it disappear for a couple years!

In '98 they re-entered the note - only with a minor word change. "The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter etc. etc."

"No longer" is changed to "Is not." Anyone picking up a book for the first timef in the last 8 years is going to read this sentence out of its historical context. "Huh? What do you mean - he is not required to pitch?" "Of course not; nobody said he had to." So then you start searching for the hidden meaning.

Talk to an old-timer and he says "oh yeah, he used to have to pitch, but it is no longer required". The words "no longer" instantly convey the message that it used to be required, but not anymore. Now it is easy to understand, even when you pick up the book for the first time.

WMB

AtlUmpSteve - If I were you I'd go back and delete your post, for it is so full of B.S. and factual errors it doesn't belong here.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by MGKBLUE

After all the years of umpiring, I still do not understand what this means. The statement is very vague and ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Actually. the sentence about the pitcher is not required to pitch, etc., is one of the parts of the ASA rule book I like to make fun of.
I know what they were trying to say, but they really mucked up the wording of the sentence.

Originally Posted by bkbjones

If the point you are trying to make is the rule book, any rule book, is poorly worded, well, that's kinda like saying much of the night sky is black...

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The kicker is that the sentence shouldn't be there to begin.

Originally Posted by Dakota

But the first time I read this, I did have to re-read it to figure it out - since the obvious meaning of the sentence is not possible.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

let's accept this sentence for what it is - another example of ASA's lousy literary skills.

Exactly!

And the only point I have been trying to make on this topic was simply this: It's poorly worded. Simply that.

I know what they're trying to say, too.

Conveying a rule by referencing a rule that used to exist is not only bad form, the language is oblique if you are unaware of the reference. It needlessly interjects an element of the rule that need not even be addressed.

I maintain, a new umpire, or one who is unaware of the rule's evolution, could have extreme difficulties with this. The sentence would not easily help him untangle a situation that should be able to be resolved with ease. Worse yet, it could cause him to come to an unintended conclusion.

Although it's true that there are many rules that are poorly worded, it is also true that some are not. This is an example of the former. That's all, and nothing more.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Let's put this where it clearly belongs. When NFHS wrote its own softball rulebook, it copied many sections from NFHS baseball.

Once again, the NFHS bashers make this (erronous, false, incorrect - your choice) statement; I suppose to support their fantasy that ASA is the PURE form of softball and NFHS is just a wanna-be.

The truth is that back in the late 50's the NFHS and the NJCAA co-created a set of rules for 12 Inch Baseball. This was very similar to the original Women's Professional Baseball created in 1943. They used baseball rules with modifications (pitching underhand, larger ball, and smaller diamond). They proudly proclaimed their goal to create a single set of rules for their high school and JUCO umpires.

HOWEVER - that expiriment was junked, and NFHS COPIED ASA when they wrote their own softball book. Not verbatim, obviously, but you may be suprised how identical the playing rules were. Example: NFHS obstructed runner would get at least one base beyond the last base achieved when they were obstructed. Baseball rule - yes? No - exact copy of ASA rule at that time - which was 1979 - almost 30 years ago.

So, for a while, the NFHS rule stated that "A pitcher is required to pitch until the first batter facing her has completed her turn at bat or the side has been retired." ASA never had that rule;

You gotta be kidding! That was an ASA rule for over 50 years! NFHS simply copied it from ASA.

NFHS chose to add the phrase "IS NO LONGER; I am sure the NFHS apologists (WMB, et al) find that easier to accept, but ASA never required it, so "no longer" would be inaccurate in the ASA rulebook.

Wrong again, Steve! Those are ASA words, and they existed in the ASA book for 10 years. As noted in earlier post, ASA dropped the sentence completely for a couple years, and replaced it with the current statement in 1998.

In '99 the NFHS handled it a little differently. They said that a starting pitcher could be removed before pitching to the first batter, but then could not re-enter as a pitcher. However, a sub pitcher still had to pitch to the first batter. (Note that "could be removed" is a positive statement; much easier to understand than ASA's negative statement.)

By 2002 the NFHS decided to drop the restriction on the sub pitcher, and to make sure everyone understood, they adopted . . . . . guess what - the old ASA statement that "the pitcher is no longer required to pitch to the first batter etc etc. In 2006 NFHS simply dropped the statement from its book. As ASA did in '96, but (so far) NFHS has not seen fit to add the dumb statement that ASA did - the one that is the subject of this post's controversey.

So, David; easy fix. Take out the word "not", apply/understand your baseball rule, then apply "not", making it not required.

So, David; relax. Read the NFHS book for a clearer understanding of this situation. There is no need for a negative statement to authorize an action that is not prohibited in the first place. (edited by wmb)

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

There is no need to prohibit an act which is not allowed in the first place.

WMB

Prohibit what act? There is nothing being prohibited here.

You wonder why ASA feels the need to place something in the book that should not need to be there? This thread and should provide that answer.

It is a simple, very simple statement made in an attempt to educate those who have difficulty differentiating one rule set from another including those of backyard whiffle ball games.

And isn't it amazing how thousands and thousands of people haven't a problem with the statement yet you would think the world was coming to an end reading some of the posts here.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Prohibit what act? There is nothing being prohibited here. You wonder why ASA feels the need to place something in the book that should not need to be there? This thread and should provide that answer.

OK, it was late and that sentence was poorly written. I will remove it. What I was trying to say is that you are using a negative statement to authorize a positive action. It is equivalent to a traffic rule that states a driver does not have to wait for green to turn right if oncoming traffic is clear. Why not say that a driver is allowed to turn right on red?

And isn't it amazing how thousands and thousands of people haven't a problem with the statement yet you would think the world was coming to an end reading some of the posts here.

I don't think that is the issue at all. Most of the responders here know what the rule is trying to do, but are arguing that it is poorly written.

Mike - I don't think that you can come out of the ASA "forest" to see the sick "trees." Your knowledge and inside information is a great benefit to readers of these umpire boards. But you don't have to be the protector of ASA; you don't have to be so defensive everytime you read a critical remark about ASA.

This post would have ended a long time ago with a simple statement that, "yes it is poorly written, but here is how to interpret it.. . . . . . . . . . . . ."

WMB

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Mike - I don't think that you can come out of the ASA "forest" to see the sick "trees." Your knowledge and inside information is a great benefit to readers of these umpire boards. But you don't have to be the protector of ASA; you don't have to be so defensive everytime you read a critical remark about ASA.

WMB

Now, that's an incredible case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

ASA never had that rule; at least not within my memory.

So, after your historical review, you can determine that ASA had a similar rule that was discarded AT LEAST 22 years ago (you said somewhere about 1985), but can't accept that "within my memory" may not fall in that time frame. I did actively umpire then, but did not sanction with ASA, but DID call NFHS softball in those years. Yet, NFHS had a requirement and/or a penalty up until 2002, just 5 years ago, but you find it inappropriate that someone lays the current alleged confusion on NFHS.

I realize you want to blame all on ASA, and protect the image of NFHS, but that is simply incredible. And, you claim my post is full of BS?? "Not within my memory" is not even an inaccuracy, and the timeline you presented blows the credibility of your conclusions. Step back and relook at your position here. Ooh yeah, it is ASA, worded differently from NFHS, it must be poorly worded!! We can always start with your conclusion, then work back to your supposed documentation.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Mike - I don't think that you can come out of the ASA "forest" to see the sick "trees." Your knowledge and inside information is a great benefit to readers of these umpire boards. But you don't have to be the protector of ASA; you don't have to be so defensive everytime you read a critical remark about ASA.

I look at it as protecting the intelligent masses from extraneous bull. BTW, I attend every NFHS clinic available in my state. I have also been asked for NFHS interpretations by local associations. Haven't kicked one yet including the bat issue this year.

This post would have ended a long time ago with a simple statement that, "yes it is poorly written, but here is how to interpret it.. . . . . . . . . . . . ."

Yes, it could have if I believed it to be true. I don't. And just because you choose to believe it to be so, doesn't make such a belief absolute. Remember, the purpose of anything put to words whether verbal or written is to communicate to the masses, not pass a writting class.

It also could have ended when the correct and valid references and interpretations were offered as requested.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

This post would have ended a long time ago with a simple statement that, "yes it is poorly written, but here is how to interpret it.. . . . "

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It also could have ended when the correct and valid references and interpretations were offered as requested.

Aw, c'mon now, Mike. You are twisting what this thread has been about.

Nobody ever rejected the interpretation. Nobody!

There was always a consensus as to what the rule meant.

The debate, for better or worse (probably worse ), has swarmed around the wording.

When I, along with a host others, opined that the wording was cumbersome - you disagreed. That was the point of contention.

So, I think WestMichBlue's observations and comments are right on target.

* * *

Listen, I know you and I seem to butt heads a lot. For the life of me I don't see why you seem to get so agitated. I know I tend to micro-focus on rules. That's probably because I have done a lot of training of young umpires who rely heavily on the written word. They don't read manuals, they don't have time for clinics, and they don't have the experience or access to seasoned umpires to always enlighten them. If they have a question, mostly, they go to the rule book and try to get an answer.

It's my "pet peeve" (and everybody knows it) that I think rule books should be as straight forward and clear as possible. I know that will probably never happen. But I can dream.

Many of these organizations change their rule book on a yearly basis. They add a sentence here, remove a sentence there, renumber the rules, change a clarification, etc. That's a good thing! Sometimes I'm just amazed that some of the more poorly-worded rules are not recognized as such and are not reworded to eliminate any confusion.

These type of threads annoy you, clearly. Yet you participate. Nobody is twisting your arm.

Yet, I think discussions like this are actually beneficial. You think they're destructive. Maybe we're both right, to a degree. You stated that discussions like this could confuse a new umpire. Perhaps. But I think it is much more important not to confuse an umpire within the rule book. How many umpires are going to read this thread versus the number of umpires who are reading the rule book? What we say here, whether right or wrong, isn't going to have much of an impact on the umpiring community. What the rule book says is going to have an infinitely greater impact.

I already knew what that rule was trying to say. I think we all did. But as a result of this thread I have learned a lot of interesting things about the evolution of the rule that I didn't know before. I see that as a good thing for everybody!

Like I said before, I don't understand how people can get so angry about things like this. I see it as mostly an academic exercise while others see it as a personal battle.

It's a sharing of opinions - that's all. It was my opinion that the rule was needlessly convoluted. It was your opinion that it was quite clear. Some agreed with me, some agreed with you. No big deal. That doesn't make me right or you wrong, or vice versa. It's just a discussion.

Sometimes, in my zeal, I come up with some bad metaphors - like when I suggested you were taking this too personal, as if we were talking about your daughter. I hope you know that I seriously didn't intend for that to be a slam on your daughter. Why would I do that? Like I said, I don't even know if you're married let alone have any children at all. I used it as a metaphor for taking things personally, and then you ... well ... took it personal.

I apologize for that, nonetheless.

Thanks for the discussion.




David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Sometimes, in my zeal, I come up with some bad metaphors - like when I suggested you were taking this too personal, as if we were talking about your daughter. I hope you know that I seriously didn't intend for that to be a slam on your daughter. Why would I do that? Like I said, I don't even know if you're married let alone have any children at all. I used it as a metaphor for taking things personally, and then you ... well ... took it personal.

Personally! (not personal).

Anyway, you've taken all the fun out of poking fun at that sentence. At least for a few months.

[WestMichBlue]

Steve - your rantings are ridiculous. You are presenting your opinions and memories as factual - which they are not. I am dealing with FACTS. My rulebook collection covers nearly 80% of the 75 year ASA rules history. In most cases I can go to the exact year and pinpoint the rule being discussed. I don't have to interpret it; just read it.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, after your historical review, you can determine that ASA had a similar rule

No, not similar - ASA wrote the rule. And it was in their books for 50 years - pitcher had to pitch to first batter faced.

that was discarded AT LEAST 22 years ago (you said somewhere about 1985),

NO - it was not discarded, it was changed. ASA decided that the pitcher no longer had to pitch to the first batter fast, so that changed the rule to the NO LONGER version. I said "about" 1985 because it is still the old way in the '84 book, and was changed (without notation) in the '88 book. So the change occurred in '85, '86 or '87. (I don't have those three books, but I am factually accurate in saying "about" '85. Could have easily said "about" '86)

Yet, NFHS had a requirement and/or a penalty up until 2002

They DID NOT! Can't you read? In '99, the year following the current ASA version the NFHS handled it differently by stating that the pitcher could be removed before pitching to the first batter. A positive statement, better worded than ASA's version.

just 5 years ago, but you find it inappropriate that someone lays the current alleged confusion on NFHS.

Uh, Steve, who is the confused one here? In 2002 NFHS dropped the restriction on the substitute pitcher and adopted the old ASA "NO LONGER" statement. Last year they dropped that statement because we don't need it anymore. If ASA would do the same thing, we could end this argument forever.

and the timeline you presented blows the credibility of your conclusions.

You have no clue! If you want to provide your email address I will scan the rules in both the ASA and NFHS book in each of the years that are in my time line and send them to you. Provide your street address and I will also provide the Salt & Pepper!

then work back to your supposed documentation.

Not supposed - real! Check with Dakota. He has a complete copy of the original ASA book that I scanned and sent to him. And I have 50+ more from the original to 2007.


WMB

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Check with Dakota. He has a complete copy of the original ASA book that I scanned and sent to him.

Yeah. The intent was I was going to put it up on the eteamz Softball Umpires site, but the scanned book is too big for the meager amount of storage eteamz gives away for free.

I'm still trying (off and on) to figure something out to make it generally available to everyone. It is interesting. And only ~30 or so pages.

[IRISHMAFIA]

How much space you need?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

How much space you need?

It is a PDF document that is just short of 4MB.

[tcblue13]

Tom,
I have a personal website that I would be happy to use to post that ASA rulebook. You could link to it from your eteamz page (or your forum sig or both).