Brain Teaser question

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Instead they said that the pitcher is not required to pitch until the side has been retired. How the heck does the inning end if the pitcher doesn't pitch?

The actual wording: The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side has been retired.

Stop and think about it. The key is "NOT REQUIRED TO". The rule does not state that the pitcher CANNOT pitch until the first batter completes their time at bat or the side has been retired.

The inning ends because the pitcher (whomever he, she or they may be) does pitch until the defense records three outs.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The actual wording: The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side has been retired.

Stop and think about it. The key is "NOT REQUIRED TO". The rule does not state that the pitcher CANNOT pitch until the first batter completes their time at bat or the side has been retired.

The inning ends because the pitcher (whomever he, she or they may be) does pitch until the defense records three outs.

Yeah, like I said, Mike, I know what they were saying. 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. It didn't make my head explode, though. I just had to read it again and think a minute about the context.

I do poke fun at it, though. 'Cause it is a goofy sentence.

If they must include a mention of the pitcher, maybe they could just simply say "There are no special rules regulating substituting for a pitcher."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If they must include a mention of the pitcher, maybe they could just simply say "There are no special rules regulating substituting for a pitcher."

And how long do you think it would take for some idiot to start thinking that if there is a published exception for the pitcher, that must mean there is some type of restriction for the others?

Yep, I can see it now.

Coach: Blue, #17 is listed as F3, but she is standing in LF. Doesn't that mean she has to play the first baseman's position for at least one batter?

Blue: You know, coach, the exception only applies to the pitcher, so I believe you are correct. Hey, coach, #17 needs to play 1B for at least one batter!

Oy vay!!!

[AtlUmpSteve]

What a mountain made out of a speck of friggin ant dirt!!

Let's put this where it clearly belongs. When NFHS wrote its own softball rulebook, it copied many sections from NFHS baseball. 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." I bet David understands that sentence, and sees nothing grammatically incorrect about it.

ASA never had that rule; at least not within my memory. To make clear that rule was not a softball rule, ASA took that sentence EXACTLY as written, and added the "NOT. So, how is that difficult to understand? Is not required!! As opposed to required!!

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.

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

[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