ASA Rule Change Proposals for 2008

I disagree with IRISHMAFIA that the chopped ball definition change is unnecessary. The rule currently is vague and wide-open to interpretation, while I believe this change will bring some uniformity to the interpretation. There are SP players who swing downwards (and I'm one of them) who hopes to clip the ball just right to put a crazy spin on it that gives it a lofty flight (hard to explain in words what I mean) and they end up missing the mark and it looks like a chop. Most times those of us who swing downwards are not intentionally chopping, but swinging to give it a good hop. The word "deaden" would give us some room to say, hey, you chopped down at it in an effort to keep it from going anywhere, that's a chop.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

I disagree with IRISHMAFIA that the chopped ball definition change is unnecessary. The rule currently is vague and wide-open to interpretation, while I believe this change will bring some uniformity to the interpretation. There are SP players who swing downwards (and I'm one of them) who hopes to clip the ball just right to put a crazy spin on it that gives it a lofty flight (hard to explain in words what I mean) and they end up missing the mark and it looks like a chop. Most times those of us who swing downwards are not intentionally chopping, but swinging to give it a good hop. The word "deaden" would give us some room to say, hey, you chopped down at it in an effort to keep it from going anywhere, that's a chop.

Not true. I don't believe this gives any more clarity to the definition. I've never heard of a "chop swing" as being described as anything, but a straight chop perpendicular to the ground "as if chopping a log". That means the bat is raised over one's head. (Well, anyone who chops log knows that unless splitting, straight down is not going to do the job that well. I would say it is more like driving a stake into the ground with a sledge.) What can be more precise than "straight down"?

Nonetheless, the ban on "chopping" was probably adopted from baseball. The purpose was to "chop" the ball and drive it directly into the ground to bounce it high and give the BR time to advance before the ball came down. From what I understand of the history of this, some groundskeepers at ball parks would allow the area in front of the plate to harden like concrete. I'm sure we have all had games on infield like that. The batter would drive the ball into the ground. Sometimes it would bounce high enough the BR would be at first before the ball came down. Sometimes it would bounce over the infielder's heads for a base hit (Baltimore Chop).

Probably what brought this to light is last year a speedster of the All-Army team, He made the Armed Forces team and demonstrated his ability to top the ball and beat out an infield hit in the Men's A Nationals in OKC. There was a large amount of complaints by the opposing players.

Performing this feat, even in SP, is not that easy. Of course, I'm in the group that believes the bases should be moved back in SP which would help eliminate the effect of a "softly" batted ball.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...Proposal #47 was submitted by a member of the NUS (I have a secondary packet with each individual proposal, full descriptive language attached, and name of the proposer/submitter). I suspect he submitted it for someone else, a nonvoting member, from his region; I wouldn't necessarily assume or suggest it was his idea or wording....

After the minor FUBAR of last year's ASA rules changes, I wrote an editorial on the ASA rules change process. Here is a brief quote from that editorial:

Perhaps the entire process is too susceptible to foolish hobby-horse ideas coming from people who can gather alliances or can otherwise carry the day before more rational people have a chance to mull over the proposal and weigh into the discussion with some sensible, considered, rational, in-touch-with-reality views.

If a member of the NUS (or other voting member) must be the person who actually submits rules change proposals, this would be a good place for the initial filtering out of stupid, poorly-worded, reactionary "I'm-teed-off-and-there-otta-be-a-rule" or other bad ideas to occur.

Then maybe we need to define it better so that the hands has to go above the head in the swing motion, because mine doesn't when I hit it like that. That's where I'm getting all the *****ing when I work the games, is the swing itself goes downward, even though the person never raised the bat.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If a member of the NUS (or other voting member) must be the person who actually submits rules change proposals, this would be a good place for the initial filtering out of stupid, poorly-worded, reactionary "I'm-teed-off-and-there-otta-be-a-rule" or other bad ideas to occur.

In an ideal world, that would be the case. In our real world, many (if not most) of us are required to be politically savvy enough to not refuse the request of a power broker.

All local level positions serve at the pleasure of the Commissioner; there are no defined terms of office for the positions we hold, and in most cases, the actual position held isn't even the title granted to make you a voting member. State and Association UIC's, Player Reps, JO Commissioners, At-Large Player Reps; we all serve at the (whim or) pleasure of the Commissioner. Regional UIC's, Regional JO Commissioners, and Regional Player Reps have defined terms (by Region rule, usually every year or two years(, but Commissioners rule the Regions, and making an enemy of a power broker leads to a short career. Most of us (those who have gotten a position) have worked many years to get where we are, and won't risk making that enemy.

The process sucks; I agree. But if I was leaned on by a power broker to submit a rule change I didn't particularly agree with, I would submit it anyway. I might be wrong about what is good and what is bad, and the committee process would, at least, get the suggestion a salute and a response. If it is bad, then I would hope the system would kill it. But, I would still have the support of the power broker for representing his idea.

If I ever reach a position where I don't need the support of anyone else, I might stop being so inclined. Not sure what position that would be, but if I get there, I will consider changing.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Proposal 47: Let's see, if the batter makes ANY move (in or out of the box) she can be called for interference (sub rules 1-3), and if the batter does NOT make a move, she can be called for interference (4).

GREAT idea!

Who thought that one up?

Originally Posted by ASA proposal 47

47 7.6-Q For interference when hindering the catcher's fielding or throwing by: Clarify Interference on a batter while in the batter's box.
1. Leaning over the plate 2. Stepping out of or otherwise moving from the batters box 3. Making any movement which hinders the catchers actions or the catchers attempt to make a play. 4. Failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate the area when there is a throw to or from the plate and there is time for the batter to move away.

Originally Posted by NFHS Rule 7-4-5

A batter shall not interfere with with the catcher's fielding or throwing by leaning over home plate, by stepping out of the batter's box, by making any other movement which hinders action at home or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner, or by failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate congested area when there is a throw to home and there is time for the batter to move away.

Originally Posted by Irishmafia

GFL. This is a clusterf**k of a rule proposal.

Wonder what WMB thinks about the wording of the proposal? Sure looks like a copycat version of the NFHS rule to me. That specific NUS member (Jerry Fick) I believe is also an NFHS State Rules Interpretor (Ohio).

Personally, I don't see how it adds or changes anything from the current rulings; maybe spells out more specific examples of what may be interference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Steve, I think it is way too vague. This past year saw quite a few umpires, in spite of being told to not overreact to the changes involving INT by a batter get extremely overofficious with this situation. I've even had people claim that it was INT because the batter DIDN'T make a move to avoid the catcher's throw.

Too much BS. I don't believe there were half the problems involving INT on the batter before ASA started screwing around with the INT rules last year.