NSA Ruling?

[David Emerling]

Duh. Of course. If I write and publish a book, why would I want to give it away for free? And as to it being readily available, see above.

My gosh, it's not like it's "War and Peace."

The point of writing a book, making a movie, or writing a song, is usually with the specific aim of making money by providing entertainment.

Even instructional manuals are sold for profit. The author is selling knowledge that the reader would not otherwise have - that the author does. That's understandable.

I don't see how the rules of a commonly played game rises to that lofty level of copyright protection.

Sure, it's their right to do it - I just think its an example of the poor exertion of a right. Like I said, other organizations aren't as protective about their rules.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

40,000 ASA umpires buy their book each year, along with thousands of coaches. Do you really think over 60,000 copies of MLB's ORB are sold each year?

I'm not talking about umpires and coaches - I'm talking about people who want to know the rules who do not fit into one of these categories.

The better question would be: How many non-umpires and non-coaches are purchasing the ASA rulebook versus the number of people who grab the Sporting News edition of the Official Baseball Rules which can almost always be found in the sports section at almost any bookstore - despite the fact that those rules are readily available in countless locations on the internet, including MLB's website?

Bah, I'm tired of feeding the troll.

Nooooo!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

What - websites don't have paid advertisements? In many ways, websites work in a very similar fashion as TV/radio stations. There is a fine line between "web hits" and "Nielson Ratings." When you *click* on one of those advertisements, it frequently brings additional revenue to the web owner in additional to the costs of placing the ad in the first place.

It works in a similar fashion. Frequently, the "free" information on a website isn't so "free."

If you haven't noticed, the ASA website has no shortages of opportunities to buy stuff - although, they usually don't choose to sell anything that is not specifically sold by them. I haven't checked, but I doubt you will find a link (or advertisement) for Honig's umpire equipment anywhere on their website. But that's their choosing. That's their right. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, the ASA might even sell more of their stuff if there was more of an enticement to visit their website.

Feel free to propose a different business model to the ASA. One thing about free enterprise - every enterprise gets to choose their own business model. Some succeed; some don't. ASA seems to be doing reasonably well with theirs.

That is a comment that most people make when they're running out of things to say; as if the question, in itself, somehow diminishes the relevance.

It's relevance should be obvious. You seem to be making the argument that because they own the rights to the rules, they should maintain the rules' limited availability. I'm pointing out that plenty of people do not exercise their ownership in that manner. I'm suggesting that the ASA exercise their ownership in a more liberal fashion - for the greater good. It's just my opinion - and I suspect many others hold the same opinion.

That's how it's relevant!

BS. Your initial statement is the retort used when there is nothing left to say. It is irrelevant because there is no requirement, suggestion, or even economic theory that says all businesses operating in the same area must or should follow the same business model. What others do and how they do it is irrelevant, unless your only point is that it is possible to give it away. I never argued it was not possible; only that they had no obligation to do so and that they are not in existence as a benevolent organization out to educate the general public. Nevermind that giving the rule book away won't educate the public anyway.

So you'll agree that many fans are woefully ignorant of the rules? I agree!

How could it make things worse by making the rules available for somebody, like a fan, who may have a passing interest in some aspect of the game? ... especially since you seem to be acknowledging that it's a problem. Wouldn't it be better if daddy was better educated?

You've stepped down quite a bit from claiming it would educate daddy to saying it wouldn't cause any harm. Since there are ample rule books out there online, and since most of the rules essentially are the same, we have more than sufficient evidence this does not solve the uneducated fan (or even coach) problem. Hence, there is no benefit on this front from giving the rule book away.

But it would be nice, at times, when I don't have the book in my back pocket, whenever I have a question, to be able to fire up the computer and check it out online. It would be a nice convenience even for an umpire or coach who actually does get a copy of the book after registering.

I've seen posts within this very forum where a poster will say something like: "I'm at work, I don't have my rulebook available, but I think that it says such-in-such ..."

Oh, but you CAN do this; you just have to PAY for it for ASA and NFHS. Join the NFHS Officials Association, you have online access. Buy the ASA CD, load it onto your computer, and you have computer access whenever you are near your computer. Load it onto your home computer and your work computer and you'll have it both places. I suppose now you'll argue that it is not there when you use the public library computers. Well, you're right. Yawn.

If you're convinced the softball world is better served by the manner in which the ASA and NFHS chooses to dessimenate their system of rules, I can see I cannot convince you otherwise.

At least admit that it is highly more likely that their decision is more of a business decision than it is a softball decision. And, in my opinion, I don't even think it's a very good business decision.

Find where I said anything about this other than it being their right to make their own business decisions about how to distribute their property. You are the one making the high-sounding claims about the goodness to mankind.

I guess I'm both an idealist and a purist on this matter.

That's two words, I guess, but inaccurate ones. You consider it idealistic for property owners to merely place everything into the public domain? As an engineer whose stock-in-trade is intellectual property, I can tell you that model for civilization will not work. I think there was a former world power that tried something resembling that model where everyone was supposed to operate for the good of the whole for some 90 years before they gave it up.

[David Emerling]

You've stepped down quite a bit from claiming it would educate daddy to saying it wouldn't cause any harm.

I'm saying both! I've been saying both.

Since there are ample rule books out there online, and since most of the rules essentially are the same, we have more than sufficient evidence this does not solve the uneducated fan (or even coach) problem. Hence, there is no benefit on this front from giving the rule book away.

"essentially, the same"

Boy, that sure would be helpful to look up the NSA substitution rules when curious about the ASA substitution rules.

Yeah, I guess if you wanted the definition of a fair ball, you may be right.

By the way, the AFA rulebook says the hands are part of the bat.

Oh, but you CAN do this; you just have to PAY for it for ASA and NFHS. Join the NFHS Officials Association, you have online access. Buy the ASA CD, load it onto your computer, and you have computer access whenever you are near your computer. Load it onto your home computer and your work computer and you'll have it both places. I suppose now you'll argue that it is not there when you use the public library computers. Well, you're right. Yawn.

Aren't these additional charges over and above the hardcopy you get when registering with ASA?

Does a registered ASA umpire get the CD? He gets the hardcopy rulebook. If his perferred method of studying rules is more suited for online or computer study, he has to pay even more - is that what you're saying?

Find where I said anything about this other than it being their right to make their own business decisions about how to distribute their property. You are the one making the high-sounding claims about the goodness to mankind.

Then why are we even having this debate, if all you're saying is that they have the right to distribute their rules in any manner they see fit? Where have I disagreed with that? Of course they have the RIGHT.

My argument isn't even that they should give away hardcopies of their rulebook for free. I've never even said that.

My point is much simpler: Their rules should also be online. Just that.

It's my opinion the sport would be better served, if only in a small way, by doing so. Certainly not harmful.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Dakota]

So, as I said before, you just want it free (online).

As to rules essentially the same, the example you gave earlier of a quick pitch call would be the same in just about every fastpitch rule book.

As to AFA saying hands are part of the bat, BZZZZT, Wrong. Quit relying on the online (but wrong) AFA book from a year or two ago that you apparently downloaded and read the real one. Or, go to the AFA web site and download a corrected one.

NFHS is online (but not free). ASA is computer readable (but not free). Notice a trend here? NOT FREE.

Your position is you want it free on your computer. Too bad. You attempt to glorify this into some altruistic "good for softball" rationale, but even then, you are reduced to a "wouldn't hurt" argument.

And speaking of "wouldn't hurt" - that was not your initial position. You claimed you wanted to educate daddy. In fact, it seems to me you merely want it free on your computer.

As to the various organization's pricing policies, additional charges (as if that is some un-American thing for additional value), etc., check with them. I know ASA does not require you to register to get the CD. I know NFHS does require you to join the Officials Association to get online access. Beyond that, check for yourself. Check ebay, whatever floats your boat.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Dakota

So, as I said before, you just want it free (online).

As to rules essentially the same, the example you gave earlier of a quick pitch call would be the same in just about every fastpitch rule book.

But you wouldn't know that unless you checked.

As to AFA saying hands are part of the bat, BZZZZT, Wrong. Quit relying on the online (but wrong) [you mean out-of-date] AFA book from a year or two ago that you apparently downloaded and read the real one. Or, go to the AFA web site and download a corrected one.

I love poking fun at them for that. I even wrote the organization a letter about it. It doesn't surprise me that it no longer appears in their rulebook. I haven't looked at it for some time. I'm sure it's been corrected.

You motivated me to go to their website. I notice that, already, they have their 2008 rulebook available. They have been notoriously delinquent in keeping their rulebook up-to-date, frequently stating on their website that it's "in the works."

See how nice it was to go to afasoftball.com, click on the rulebook link, and immediately be invited to either purchase their rulebook or view the online rulebook for FREE?

Is that so hard?

How convenient!

Can't you tell it makes the world a better place?

The fact that you could even verify the fact that they have removed (i.e. corrected) "the hands are part of the bat" phraseology was because they had their rules available online - for you to look at. Unless, of course, you have your own hardcopy of the 2008 AFA rules, in which case I stand corrected.

NFHS is online (but not free). ASA is computer readable (but not free). Notice a trend here? NOT FREE.

Unquestionably!

Your position is you want it free on your computer. Too bad. You attempt to glorify this into some altruistic "good for softball" rationale, but even then, you are reduced to a "wouldn't hurt" argument.

That's my entire argument - it wouldn't hurt. Further, it would probably help. And, yes, you're right, it is an altruistic view on my part. Call me naive.

I guess I'm just a pure fan, umpire, and coach that has a hard time wrapping my mind around the need to make a system of rules into some kind of Dead Sea Scroll secret that is intended to be a cash cow.

Without a doubt - it's their right. I can't argue that.

And speaking of "wouldn't hurt" - that was not your initial position. You claimed you wanted to educate daddy. In fact, it seems to me you merely want it free on your computer.

That daddy-post came later, as an example of how it could help and serve a useful purpose. That, in itself, is not the entire essence of my argument. But it's part of it.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[SRW]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

By the way, the AFA rulebook says the hands are part of the bat.

Wow. So I am not an AFA umpire. I don't know their rules, I don't umpire for AFA, never even been to their website until today.

And gosh, they CHOOSE to sell you a rulebook... and they CHOOSE to freely distribute their rulebook as a PDF for free. They, as the copyright owners, made that choice with their intellictual property.

But it would appear, Mr. Piano, that you are 100% wrong in your statement above.

It took me 3 minutes to look up their website and find at least 3 references to the hands and the bat. Perhaps you should look it up too.

Here, I'll even make it easy for you. Click here and go to page 90, bottom of the page. Or even page 96, o. Or page 99 note 3.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by SRW

Wow. So I am not an AFA umpire. I don't know their rules, I don't umpire for AFA, never even been to their website until today.

And gosh, they CHOOSE to sell you a rulebook... and they CHOOSE to freely distribute their rulebook as a PDF for free. They, as the copyright owners, made that choice with their intellictual property.

But it would appear, Mr. Piano, that you are 100% wrong in your statement above.

It took me 3 minutes to look up their website and find at least 3 references to the hands and the bat. Perhaps you should look it up too.

Here, I'll even make it easy for you. Click here and go to page 90, bottom of the page. Or even page 96, o. Or page 99 note 3.

I know. This has already been discussed.

I'm just poking fun at them, because in their previous rulebook (prior to being completely rewritten), they had this exact phrase: "The hands are part of the bat." It was probably a misprint. At least, I hope it was a misprint.

Without any doubt, it did appear in their rulebook.

But, unwittingly, you make my case!

The beauty of it is that you were able to look it up! And, by your own testament, promptly! All this despite your not owning an AFA rulebook. And it's unlikely you would have purchased one to find the answer to that one point of fleeting curiosity.

I'm saying that it's a "good thing" that you were able to do that.

I don't think rules knowledge should the sole province of coaches and umpires and that somebody should be extorted into buying an entire book to answer a simple point like "Are the hands considered part of the bat?"

If your car needed new windshield wipers, would you think it proper to be forced to buy the whole car just to get new wipers? If that were the case, you'd probably resign yourself to the fact that it's just going to suck every time it rains and you have to drive. You'll do without.

That's the position casual fans and interested parties are in with regards to ASA rules. Again, I'm excluding registered umpires and coaches. And yet, even for them, it would still be nice to have it available online without additional fees, over and above the cost of the hardcopy rulebook.

Thank you!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[SRW]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I'm just poking fun at them

I don't believe you. If you meant it to be a poke, you would have had a "smile" next to it. No, I believe that you just got caught, and are backpeddling like you have been this entire thread.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Without any doubt, it did appear in their rulebook.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I'm saying that it's a "good thing" that you were able to do that.

And I think it's unfortunate that AFA has chosen to not be reimbursed monitarily for distributing their intellictual property in an electronic format.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

If your car needed new windshield wipers, would you think it proper to be forced to buy the whole car just to get new wipers? If that were the case, you'd probably resign yourself to the fact that it's just going to suck every time it rains and you have to drive. You'll do without.

You don't know me. It rains a lot up here in Seattle...

BTW I'm done. The troll should be sufficiently well fed today.

[David Emerling]

I found this funny; the tagline on your last post was:

We see with our eyes. Fans and parents see with their hearts.

I chuckled to myself and said, "The only thing fans and parents have is their hearts - because they sure as hell don't have a rulebook."

I know! I know!

Then they should BUY one!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

I don't believe you. If you meant it to be a poke, you would have had a "smile" next to it. No, I believe that you just got caught, and are backpeddling like you have been this entire thread.

Oh, I'm so glad you said that!

Prove it.

OK, I will!

First of all, I can't give you a link to a set of rules that is out-dated and has recently been updated. That would be impossible.

But I did write an article for officiating.com and made a reference to this rule and provided a link to the AFA rules. At the time, this was the only link available since they were in the middle of a complete rewrite.

I don't know if you're a subscribing member, but the article to which I'm referring is: Softball - How different is it really? Part III

At the time, the AFA rule was 10.15.a.2.

Their 2008 rules were not out at the time I wrote the article (September 4th, 2007). I'm happy to know that they are now available. I learned that today, because of their website.

If you go to that article and *click* on the link I provided, you will discover that that link is now broken. http://www.texasafasoftball.com/rulebook06.html

At the time, this was the only place to get the AFA rules. It was a 2006 rule set. And it was their rules, I assure you.

If what I'm saying is not true, then why would I risk creating a link and discussing what their rules say in a published article - that ultimately got approved by the editor - if it were not true?

I could probably go rooting through my archives on another computer where I used to collect all this junk and even send you a copy of their 2006 rulebook that had this comment. But I'm hoping you'll be satisfied with this.

Or, is there another gunman on your grassy knoll?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Dakota]

If you were an actual umpire who was paying attention instead of making inane posts about things you know nothing about, you would know AFA corrected this typo some time ago. However, since you are not an actual umpire who was paying attention, you thought that was their actual rule and that it was still in force.

BZZZZT!

It also goes to show how little credibility your "article" about softball had. You knew so little about the game, you actually thought that was the rule!

BZZZZT!

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If you were an actual umpire who was paying attention instead of making inane posts about things you know nothing about, you would know AFA corrected this typo some time ago. However, since you are not an actual umpire who was paying attention, you thought that was their actual rule and that it was still in force.

BZZZZT!

It also goes to show how little credibility your "article" about softball had. You knew so little about the game, you actually thought that was the rule!

BZZZZT!

If you read the article I cited, the context in which I mention the AFA "rule" is clear: poor wording, poor explanations, and poor interpretations give rise to unintended misunderstandings.

I already told you that I wrote the AFA to verify that this was a misprint. I suspected it was.

But don't you find it funny that an italicized section of the rulebook (as if to emphasis the point), perpetuates one of the most famous myths in the sport?

The AFA's response was nothing more than, "We're rewriting the entire rulebook," without acknowledging what I had originally asked. It had to be pretty embarrassing, I guess. I just had to know if that was a misprint or intentional. It was just too juicy to ignore.

When I cite the misguided rule in the article, I say, "You might need to read that sentence again, slowly." It's pretty obvious it's a misprint.

Imagine you were a new umpire and read that rule - not knowing any better. Hell, it would take years to undo the damage of that sentence.

One thing I do know is this: I don't need you to characterize what I meant.

What - you've run out of pithy arguments about online rules? When you can't handle the substance, you have to dispute the style. When you can't handle the message - attack the messenger?

Oh - you can do better than that.

C'mon! Impress me!

Ah - what the hell - just ignore me. I debate things too much as it is. But I never get angry. I think things can be debated civilly - even if I tend to be kind of sarcastic at times. Perhaps my poor attempt at humor. I need to work on that - huh?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[azbigdawg]

My God, I will be glad when 8u Softball starts back up in Tenn....

[Dakota]

Your credibility is shot. Give it up.