Brain Teaser question
 

greymule asked a great question and I butted in and answered it out-of-turn. Hey, does that mean I batted out of order? Does that make the person who should've answered it, out? Shouldn't the "proper" answerer be blamed for the infraction?

Anyway, I'm riddled with guilt for ruining the game.

So, to make amends, I'll come up with another question. Anybody can answer it.

Scenario:

Lineup cards have been exchanged and the game is about to begin. The home team takes the field. The home team's lineup indicates their intention to make use of the DP/FLEX provision. The FLEX player is listed in the 10th spot and is designated as the pitcher.

The game begins and the leadoff batter gets a base-on-balls.

The next batter hits a sharp comebacker to the pitcher, who astutely whirls and fires to 2nd. They turn a double play!

At the conclusion of the play, the offensive manager requests time and wants to speak to you, the PU. He is carrying a lineup card and has a befuddled look on his face.

Offensive manager: "Hey, the player they have listed as their pitcher is not pitching? Isn't that illegal?"

That's the extent of his comment. He is asking you.

Isn't that illegal?

You get out your lineup card to see what is going on. Sure enough, the player who is pitching is actually indicated as the "2B" on the lineup.

Then who in the heck is playing 2B? It's the DP!

Then where in the hell is the FLEX (who was the designated pitcher in the lineup)? She's sitting on the bench!

You take a deep breath and shake your head.

Offensive manager, "Can they do that - not use the player they put down as their starting pitcher?"

* * *

However you choose to answer, make sure you make it clear which system of rules you are using for the basis of your answer. (ASA, NFHS, ...)

Add details! What would you actually tell this manager? How would you handle this?

Good luck!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Speaking ASA

Absolutely! As long as the DC reported that change prior to the batted ball.

The defensive designation on a line-up card is relevant only as it pertains to the use of a CR for the team who bats in the top half of the first inning.

The FLEX is now out of the game and has a re-entry available. So, as the PU there are two possibilities.

1. The defense's coach announced the DP for the FLEX change (required as noted in RS.15.L) at the top of the inning and you inform the coach that this is a legal substitute (assuming you forgot to record it on your card. Shouldn't happen, but it does), or

2. You realized the defense failed to report the change. Now the DP is considered an unreported substitute. In accordance with 4.6.C.8:

a. The DP is disqualified and must be replaced with a legal substitute or the Flex must re-enter the game in the DP's position;

b. The offense has the option to take the result of the play (not likely) or return the last batter to the box, assume the count as it stood prior to the last pitch and all runners return to the last base occupied prior to the play.

Under ASA this will depend upon whether the unreported sub, second base, was involved with the double play.

If the double play was completed by the shortstop and first base then R 4.6.8 would not apply. Inthat case I would let the play stand, but I would still disqualify the unreported sub.

OK, good point. Let's say it was a 1-6-3 double play. I didn't think that question would come up so soon.

I'm wondering if rule 4.6.D applies: "The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side is retired."

Hmm...

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Nope! This is all news to the PU.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Which is why there is a #2.

From the original post: fires to 2nd. They turn a double play.

Since the base cannot catch the ball :rolleyes: , I read this as being F4. Otherwise, I agree, if the offending player is not part of the play, all play stands and no options are given.

You're right. But that wording was not intended to imply F4 - but I can see where you could conclude that. The intent was to leave it vague as to who handled the ball.

Actually this is not my question. It was at a rules clinic. Some information was purposely left out of the scenario that might be required to rule properly.

The students were expected to gather the pertinent information and then answer it.

You've guys have already hit upon two important pieces of information:

1) Did the defensive coach inform the PU of any substitutions?
ANSWER: No

2) Did F4 handle the ball on the double play?
ANSWER: No

But is there anything else that is important?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

After all the year of umpiring, I still do not understand what this means.

The statement is very vague and ambigious. :rolleyes:

Not really. It just means if the defense wants to replace the pitcher during the first (faced) batters at bat, they may.

In some rulesets (mostly little ball) the pitcher is required to face at least one batter until their time at bat is complete, injuries to the pitcher excluded.

I agree with MGKBLUE, it is very poorly worded.

If it means what you're saying it means, then it would be much better to say it more like you said it.

"The pitcher is not required to pitch ..."

Huh?

Then when is the pitcher required to pitch?

"...until the first batter faced completes their time at bat..."

How is the batter going to complete their time at bat unless the pitcher pitches? But the pitcher doesn't have to pitch until the batter completes their turn at bat.

[head exploding!]

Oh, I know what they're trying to say. There must be at least a dozen different ways to intelligently convey the thought. Their chosen words wouldn't have made the list.

The point is this: Does the player listed on the lineup as the pitcher have any requirement to face the first batter? And if she doesn't, are there any repercussions?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Of all the rules that befuddle the mind (or mindless as it may be), this at least for me ain't one of them. This is under the "substitution" section. If a defensive coach wants to make the change, he is allowed to do so.

The offensive coach may try and say "she has to pitch to at least one batter."

The ruling the is "No coach, The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat"

I dunno, that seems pretty simple to me.


>>>The point is this: Does the player listed on the lineup as the pitcher have any requirement to face the first batter? And if she doesn't, are there any repercussions?<<<

The answer is no, and no.

No, it is not. Could it be worded better? Maybe, but I think it is clear enough. To me, actually quite simple if you read the full sentence.

It is a true statement. The pitcher is not REQUIRED to pitch until the first batter COMPLETES their time at bat or the side has been retired.

This is what makes good umpires mediocre as it pertains to the rules. Somebody trying to "out think" the rules often results in an umpire questioning themselves on the field and that isn't a good place for that to happen.

Of course, this is JMHO

OK, then let's walk through this:

While an inning is progress and a new batter is coming to the plate, the defense requests time to change pitchers. Let's call the original pitcher, Pitcher A, and the reliever is Pitcher B. Any subsequent reliever would be Pitcher C.

Scenario #1: Pitcher B takes her warm-up tosses and the coach changes his mind. On second thought, he doesn't want Pitcher B to pitch. Her warm-up tosses looked terrible. She's not injured or anything. He just wants to bring Pitcher A back in. Or maybe Pitcher C.

Can he do that?

Scenario #2: Pitcher B is now pitching to the next batter. The first two pitches are in the dirt. The coach is not impressed. He wants to substitute and have Pitcher C finish pitching to the current batter.

Can he do that?

Scenario #3: Pitcher B walks the first batter she faces. The coach wants to change pitchers. According the rule "The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat..." OK, now that first batter has completed their time at bat - she walked. Does that mean that Pitcher B is now required to pitch? I mean, isn't that what the rule says?

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.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Yes, he can. That is covered by the rule in question.

Same question, same answer.

Absolutely not.

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?

To answer your question on the front page, this discussion proves the answer is YES, softball really is that different and you prove it often.

Just an observation . . .
 

It may just be me but is it really necessary to show impatience with people that don't "get" a particular rule? Everyone doesn't learn at the same pace. What is simple to one person is difficult to another. Gosh, I think we are just a few steps from being like the baseball forum.

I understand what the rule is. Hell, I already know the answer to the scenario I posted. I'm mostly facilitating what was supposed to a be friendly discussion. I agree with all your rulings. Did I say I didn't?

As often happens, a tangent developed where we started discussing a poorly worded rule. You can't see how poorly worded it is because you know what it is supposed to mean. I know what the rule is trying to say. But I still insist (and I think many would agree with me), that it is poorly worded for what it's trying to say.

The three situations that I posted, regarding pitcher substitutions, highlight how an umpire might stumble in resolving them where reference to the written rule doesn't seem to give him clear guidance.

Oh, here we go ...

Where did I say I didn't "accept" it? I'm simply claiming that it is poorly worded.

Hell, it's not the first poorly worded rule. I've never read any rule book that didn't have it's fair share of them.

Oh, is that what it says? :)

You're funny!

You get so angry and defensive during discussions. You're so predictable.

You're one of the only people I've ever conversed with who takes
the rules so personal, as if we were discussing how ugly your daughter was.

Relaaaax ...

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Does she look like her mom or her dad?:D

Apologies in advance for long rant.

Let me see how this works. You come to this board with a scenario. You receive detail response (as requested). An umpire comments that s/he does not understand the wording of a particular rule, but is quickly provided clarification by JEL.

Now, you pick up this banner and immediately break down the context of the sentence. You know as well as I that rules of any sport or sanctioning body are not written in a manner to not be read in full.

You offer different scenarios on a subject that is as simple as the infield fly rule, but for what purpose? You say to show how an umpire would stumble over the wording of the rule. I don't think may will if they take the rule as presently worded as a whole and apply it to the scenario at hand. If an umpire does miscontrue this rule, my opinion is because of pressure applied by a coach upon an umpire who has not been properly trained. So let's not confuse that umpire to the point of succumbing to that pressure.

That brings me to my next point. Having a discussion is fine. Presenting TWP and nearly impossible "what if" is also fine. And I can play the part of Devil's Advocate with the best of them.

However, there are times when these discussions need to be closed and under control so someone isn't going to catch the beginning and/or middle of the conversation and walk away with the wrong impression. This board often has posts about an unresolved disagreement among umpires at a meeting. If it happens in a closed and controlled environment, just think what can happen with the same discussion on here.

Dave, when you first came to this board, you did so acknowledging little to no experience with softball rules. If memory serves me correctly, it was because your daughter began playing and you wanted to understand what was happening on the field. Because you are a baseball umpire and knowing that the game and rules are different, I understood your reasoning. Problem is, IMO, too often you try to apply baseball rules, interpretations, philosophies and logic to the softball game and associated rules. And occasionally when they do not fit where you believe they should, you continue to argue in spite of precise and accurate responses from Tom, Steve, Steve, Larry, Larry, Glen, Bill, Brett, Sam, Sean, John, Dave, Mike, etc.

It is not anger or impatience. It is frustration. As I and others are occasionally reminded by some, this is not a closed debate. There is little room for argument for argument's sake after the original scenario and responses are noted. Yeah, there are clarifications and noted differences among the rule sets and interpretations and yes, some of us read things differently. That doesn't make it wrong, just different. However, even when there are different readings, once a clear, maybe even authoritative, explanation is given, is it beneficial to continue any contradiction just because you can?

Like I said, these threads are not closed discussions or debates. There are many people who umpire the games of various associations and sanctioning bodies that read this board. While some of us do it for enjoyment, entertainment, there are quite a few who have little or no formal training available to them.

While we have a good time with the banter and occasionally try to fool the next guy, others use these discussions as an educational tool to further their knowledge of the rules and game.

This is where the frustration occurs. There is nothing wrong with a good and even sometimes heated discussion. But the discussion should be more than just whining about wording someone may or may not understand. When many of us discovered this board, there were more damn IFR questions than possible scenarios including TWP. I would like to think that the reduced number we see now is a result of previous discussions.

Simple rules should be kept simple in discussion and conclusion. There is no reason to cause consternation for those seeking information and have someone sign off this board more confused than when they logged on. Leave the hard and heated discussions to the tough rules with multiple applications.


BTW, if you ever saw my daughter, you would have a hard time.........even thinking it was possible for someone to consider her less than attractive let alone ugly.:p

You're right, this rule appears under the substitution section.

Is it a substitution when the defense has F4 and F1 switch positions in mid-inning? That's not a "substitution", it's a position change; no more than if F4 and F6 swapped position.

So, is there ever a point in time when a pitcher (whether pitching because of a substitution or because of a position change) ever is "required to pitch"?

The rule uses the phraseology, "required to pitch".

When is a particular pitcher REQUIRED to throw the next pitch, if ever?

If an umpire is uncertain how to answer the above question, and he references the rule, how does the rule help him answer it?

Is it possible this is all clear in your mind because of your understanding of the game and how it is supposed to be called, rather, than your understanding of this particular rule?

Put yourself into the shoes of a fledgling umpire who is learning this stuff for the first time.

A team changes pitchers and then, changes their mind. The other coach objects and says, "They can't do that! She has to pitch."

The new umpire is unsure what to do. He opens his rule book and looks for guidance.

All it says is: "The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side is retired."

http://www.rootology.com/images/exploding_head.jpg

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I haven't uttered the word "baseball" in this discussion. I have not criticized your rulings - I think they are all correct.

You are reading too much into my background and subscribing to me, an agenda, that simply exists as a ghost in your own mind.

The problem is that you know a lot about baseball rules, probably more than the average softball umpire. You are frequently aware of these differences, as I am, also.

Since you raised the subject, allow me to clarify my position on the issue that you have now decided to raise:

1. Softball umpires, who have a certain degree of familiarity with baseball rules, have to be careful not to confuse the two. There are differences!

The same could be said of a baseball umpire who has familiarity with softball rules. You have to be careful.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be a baseball/softball thing. It could be ASA/NFHS/AFA/NSA/NCAA/ISF/USFA/USSSA type of thing

2. There are always going to be poorly worded rules. If one does not have a solid background on why a rule exists or some official interpretation regarding that rule, they can be easily tripped up by a poorly worded rule; whereas a more experienced umpire has a difficult time seeing the poor wording because his mind has already concluded (almost always correctly) what the rule is trying to say without really having an appreciation of how poorly it's saying it.

Sometimes "clarifications" of rules do more harm than good with equally poor wording.

Believe me, softball doesn't have a corner on this market.

* * *

Everybody has their "thing." In the world of umpiring, my "thing" is the firm belief that rules can be made better, or, at a minimum, more understandable. If you simply must subscribe an "agenda" to me, it would be that.

I am critical of bad rules, poorly-worded rules, or ill-conceived interpretations.

Although it was not my intent for this thread, we just happened to have stumbled across what I happen to consider a poorly-worded rule. I didn't say that it was necessarily a bad rule, or that there are any ill-conceived interpretations of this rule.

It's my opinion that it is poorly-worded. Simply that and nothing more.

Mike, I think you have more of a problem with me than the things I have to say and it shows in everything you write. You have a difficult time with the message because you want to shoot the messenger so desperately. :)

Oddly, I don't seem to have this problem with others.

By the way, the comment about "your daughter" was a metaphor. Hell, I don't even know if you have a daughter, let alone if you're even married.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

You can do it in softball, but not in baseball. I can't say exactly how it is all clear in my mind, but I am certain reading the rule books has clarified it.

Now for the fledgling umpire thing.

I have 4 children who roll eyes, sigh and leave the room when mom and I start discussing ball rules. They have no interest! The girls have flown the nest now, but I still have a 13 year old son at home. He has played ball for a couple of years, but now is a middle school wide reciever, and wrestler. Anyway, he just became our (me and the mrs) "guinea pig". This is how it went;

Son, you are the umpire. Mom puts a pitcher in to pitch, but she throws the first two pitches way over the batters head. She then asks for time and tells you "I am gonna put in another pitcher". I run out hollering "she can't do that, this pitcher has to face one complete batter!" I then ask him "what are you gonna do? He replies (as I thought he would I don't know, maybe ask my partner.") Then I had him read rule 4-6-D and asked him "now who is right?" He said "mom is, dad you are wrong!"

This is a bright kid, but he has never umpired, or had much baseball/softball desire.

I think if the rule stated , "The pitcher is (remove the word "not") required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side has been retired" there would be no confusion because that statement would be very similar to the (FED) baseball rule which states "..the substitute pitcher shall pitch to the batter then at bat, or any substitute for that batter, until such batter is put out, or reaches first base, or a third out has been made."

As 4-6-D is written, it still to me, and my offspring, is not confusing.

Not trying to flame, argue, or fan the inferno here, but you did state you understood what was meant, but that the WORDING was confusing. I ask then how could 4-6-D be worded better? Mike has already in another post asked for rule change/clarification suggestions he can propose for 2008. Maybe this could be your input.

Smart boy! :)

I have made barely over 500 posts in the Official Forum, a vast majority of those posts in the baseball section.

Mike has made nearly 6000 posts in the Official Forum, a vast majority of them in the softball section.

We both started posting here within 3 months of one another, so I don't really see how I can be such an annoyance to him. In comparison, I barely participate at all. I could easily be ignored and it wouldn't effect a thing.

I'll say two more things, then drop the subject, and simply agree to disagree about how "well" worded this rule is.

One of the points of the initial scenario was to make sure that the softball umpire's ruling (ASA-wise) was not influenced by some residual baseball knowledge that might be lurking around in his brain.

The problem with the wording of the rule is not the word "not" - if you can follow me. It is the use of the word "until."

"The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter faced completes their time at bat or the side is retired."

This strongly suggests that a time does come when the pitcher is required to pitch.

The pitcher is not required to pitch until the first batter has been faced. I mean, isn't that what it says?

And then what - he's then required to pitch?

Even the term "the pitcher" is somewhat nebulous.

Who? The new pitcher who just swapped positions with the 2nd baseman? Or, the substitute pitcher - who just entered the game from the bench? Does it matter?

Notwithstanding all the outstanding umpires in this forum who understand this rule (and your son!) I still think there are many umpires who scratch their head when reading this rule.

MGKBLUE stated, earlier in this thread:

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

He never posted again on this topic.

My guess is that there are a lot of MGKBLUE's out there. Sometimes umpires who have lots of experience, especially those who get deeply involved with the rules and interpretations, don't see the forest for the trees.

They know what the rules are and they know how they are applied. They've progressed to the point where they do not rely much on the written rule any longer. Others do!

It's dangerous to stubbornly maintain that a rule is clear (because it's clear to you!) when there is evidence to the contrary.

I could never understand why people actually get angry about these discussions.

And I'm not referring to you, JEL.

Thanks!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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.

What they are trying to say was "A pitcher may be replaced with a new pitcher at any time whether or not the pitcher has thrown a pitch."

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?

Making fun of the goofy sentence is one thing. But the intent of the sentence is pretty clear.

That's because I have been busy with a tournament, and having the pleasure to meet ArgoDad. Very nice guy!

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 -- except for the parts that aren't. Even if well written, there will be a jillion interpretations of those rules. You, me, the fence post, everyone will have their own experiences -- whether life, on the field, in a classroom or in the psycho ward -- to color their take on damned near anything.

Besides, if you are going to criticize the construction of phrases, sentences or paragraphs in the rule book, I would challenge you to examine the construction of your posts in this thread. Any grammar teacher worth a damn would give you a failing grade. This is beyond the cliche "the pot calling the kettle black."

Frankly, my experiences with your posts have led to a very finite amount of credibility. Sadly, this thread has greatly diminished that amount to something infinitestimal. The simple act of poking fun at the possibility of someone's daughter being ugly was enough to turn me off.

Proud stepfather of some beautiful kids, inside and outside, I am

The kicker is that the sentence shouldn't be there to begin. The ONLY reason it exists is due to the folks I referred to earlier. The people who try to "out think" the rules or insist on inserting their beliefs and rules from other games.

If you check the rule book where legal substitution is involved, you will not see any particular defensive position mentioned other than in this particular sentence. IOW, any legal substitution or re-entry may take place during any dead ball period.

That should be the end of it. Unfortunately, as shown by this thread, it is not. So, what it comes down to is the dummying down of a rule presentation to accommodate the few who believe they know more than everyone else.

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."

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!!!

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.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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.

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

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.


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

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; 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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.flagandbanner.com/f-b-images/EA7715.jpg :)


David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Personally! (not personal). :eek:

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

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

How much space you need?

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

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).