I'm actually for this rule, which should be no surprise to anyone who's read my posts in the past. I do not and have not ever liked the concept of allowing a player to score when they have flagrantly thumbed his/her nose at the rules and safety precautions. I admit I call mostly rec league, and this is where I can easily see this happening. While these rules are intended for championship play only, the players and coaches are still just amateurs (isn't that the first letter in "ASA"?), and we all have to go to work the next morning. Intentionally laying out a catcher (or any player, for that matter) has no place anywhere in softball. Period.

This proposed rule change simply adds an additional penalty towards something that is already illegal: flagrant and unnecessary contact. It reinforces the concept of fair play and serves as an extra reminder to players that they will be held accountable for their actions.

Let me toss out another twist in this argument. If a player acts in a grossly unsportsmanlike manner, then is subsequently allowed to score, it can be construed as benefitting the team at fault, something that was once explicitly forbidden by rule (yet now, I can't seem to find it).

So yes, I do have a problem with the current rule as it is written, and I would gladly accept this proposed rule change.

So, wade, if this happens as you've described it and the F2 DOES have the ball, you call crash interference?

No? Didn't think so. So why would you call it when the player does NOT have the ball?

BTW, Mike, if this change is approved, remind those who see to such things that RS 13 will need a re-write, especially RS 13-G.

I dont worry about me Dakota.. one thing I'm good at is figuring out the best we not to OOO this BS to death.

I worry about the rejects who stop the game to make the left fielder tuck in the back of their shirt... while I'm standing their embarrassed to be on the same field with them.

these are the ilk that suddenly will take this too far.

Good point. However, I doubt Mike is one of those... ;)

WTF are you reading? Do you need a new set of glasses or contacts?

I challenge you to note where I brought "children" into this discussion. Don't waste your time, it's not there.

BTW, do you mean "vitriol"? No, I don't believe I was being virulent at all. Just gave you an example of what could happen. As noted, I don't know what words are on your screen, but it certainly is nothing to which you are responding. You talk as if there is some great move to micromanage the game when all this is nothing more than establishing a penalty for a non-vigilent or angry runner that takes the matter of the game into account and not just the offender's participation.

The sad part is that we all know you visit multiple boards and have responded to coaches who outright state that they instruct their runners to collide with defenders, yet you think this is a non-issue.

Also, an ejection isn't going to have much affect if that player just scored the winning run?

I'm done with this. I'll see a couple of you Saturday. Have a safe trip.

Arriving Delta at 3:02 Saturday. See you there.

Delta, out of Atlanta. Who would have thought? :D

I'm in Friday. Flying with commish and she has a meeting that day.

This will be my first venture through airport security with my new knee. Should be interesting. :rolleyes:

Hope you have a good flight.

99% is bluster.. most coaches on those boards are lamer 12Ub/14ub ball coaches whose main goal in life is making sure their dd plays 2b... and on the field this is not a real problem at all. This is yet another solution to a non problem.