You cheat anytime you use a good looking baseball umpire uniform and pit it against softball blue pants / powder blue. It looks lame.

But can look good, just google around umpire pics. Any time you are look at a pic and the umpire looks good, I'd say 90% change they are gray.

Get some pleated honigs, and you might accidentally start to have a decent appearance.

Sometimes, its just not fair....

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/86/21...ae2f4511bd.jpg


because we dont even want to start to discuss slow pitch uniforms.

And many believe that is as much a myth as the hands being part of the bat. Personally, I've never noticed any difference and, yes, I do wear both.

Well, Portland ASA is separate from the HS association, so all Duffy does is sell us uniforms. I've never met Garrett but since he tells our commissioner what's up I guess I work for him.

From the baseball forum it seems like charcoal is gradually taking over everywhere; NFHS actually deleted the rulebook reference to "heather." If more of the baseball guys I work with in the summer had them I would pick some up as well since all I ever read is rave reviews about them.

Mike wrote:
Hey, look, Tony's still alive!!!
Gone but not forgotten.
Back but not umpiring.
Coaching 12-U.
Now just another PITA coach who thinks he knows something about softball and rules and such. :cool:

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">Originally Posted by tcannizzo http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
Bunt – A batted ball not swung at, but instead hit by the batter who holds the bat in the path of the ball and taps it slowly within the infield
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>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">a.) Define "swung"
b.) Define "slowly" - there is something called a push bunt which is a hard bunt intended to pass the pitcher or an agreessively charging defender.
c.) "Infield" implies fair territory, which would conflict with a 3rd strike bunt foul. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
No argument the wording could be better, but your questions are the type of things that are causing folks to believe there is a need to define it instead of leaving up to the umpire's judgment. We all know when we see a bunt and I don't need a rule to provide specs.

As I replied earlier, then why the effort necessary to define "Bunt"?

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">Charged Conference – It is not a charged conference if the pitcher is removed from the pitching position during a conference. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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">Comment: Free ticket for coach abuse. Call time, go talk to your SS/2B, change the pitcher, no charge. Next inning, change pitchers back to original. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Not really. It is no different than what they can do now, it is just a matter of when the umpire is informed. And it is a valid argument if concerning the pitcher's health.
Concerning pitcher's health: Yes, valid argument, but with current rule, as a coach, if I am concerned about pitcher's health, I am notifiing PU before entering field of play. Said notification will include some sort of justification. New rule creates opportunities.

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">Eliminate disqualification for an unreported substitute violation. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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">Comment: This change should be for JO only. This is not a bad rule for adult ball as there is more liklihood for the adult player to be deliberatley involved in the unreported violation. Thus punishes a kid who is more likely to be an innocent victim. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Regardless of the change, I think you have it backwards. FP coaches are much more likely to be intelligent enough and sly enough to try to intentionally try to slip one by the opponent or umpire :D
C'mon Mike. Sure there are devious travel coaches. I happen to be one. But there are just as many devious coaches of adult teams. The likelyhood of an adult player being aware of the shennanigans is orders of magnitude greater than that of a youth player.


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">Allow an unlimited batting order in Girl’s B FP and all FP pool play.
Comment: Good change. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
That depends on whether pool play is for seeding or not and the ramifications of going short-handed being addressed.
Class B is just that. It is about participation.
Short-handed is still the same. Drop below 8 and you are done.


<!-- / message -->

No, that is not the rule, COACH!

The rule states:

4.1.D.2 If a team begins play with the required number of players as listed, that team may continue a game with one less player than is currently in the batting order whenever a players leave the game for any reason other than ejection.

Notice it states one less than is currently in the batting order, not one less than the required number to begin the game.

That means if the batting order includes 14 players, one leaves and another is injured to the point of not being able to continue, the game is over.

Yes, if they are going to add bat-the-roster to the rule book, they will need to address the side effects. Among them are:

1) Shorthanded rule. What does shorthanded mean in a bat-the-roster game? If they drop down 1 (from, say, 14 to 13), do they take an out?

2) What about ejections? If one player is ejected, do they now forfeit (can't play shorthanded due to ejection).

3) Two players down... is it a forfeit to go from 14 to 12? (Mike's example)

4) Courtesy runner rule. Since everyone is batting, does this mean no courtesy runners?

If this gets added, I certainly hope the ASA conference / convention / convocation (whatever it is called) does not muck this rule up as badly as your typical rec league does.

answeredansweredansweredBy rule, no.

There are no proposals to change the rule regarding playing shorthand. For that matter, a note attached to the change in 4.1.C states that the shorthanded rule would apply is it does presently.

If this gets added, I certainly hope the ASA conference / convention / convocation (whatever it is called) does not muck this rule up as badly as your typical rec league does.[/quote]

Then, if the goal is participation, the rule is counterproductive. Leagues that would use this rule are by their nature less formal. Kids come and go ... arrive late, leave early, etc. Charging an out in a lineup that is batting 13, just because they started with 14 is silly. And, declaring a forfeit for a team being "shorthanded" when they still have 12 players on the bench eligible to play is even sillier. Giving up the courtesy runner is not that big a deal, but rec leagues can use all the help they can get to keep the game moving, so it is, again, counterprodutive.

Ya got me, BLUE!!!
If the rule get written as described, then I would not be in favor of the rule for GFP.

Now if you really want a professional look:

http://dyedinvermont.typepad.com/dye...yumps400_2.jpg

Hey now, when the baseball forum discussed that picture we all agreed: The guy on the right should not be wearing plate pants on the bases!;)

Seth,
I vote we use tyedye and Hawaiian shirts for the 2009 Valley Invite.

John,
You guys do that - and throw in some transportation $ - and I'll work free. As long as I can wear my bell bottoms, I mean plate pants, on the bases.:D
Heck, I might even by a wig & show up with the hair I had 30-some years ago.:D:D

I say do away with the heather and navy blue and go with these...

http://www.stsr.org/images/uniform_Greenshirt.jpg :D

So, crash rule even when the fielder doesn't have the ball? So I didn't kick this last year, I was just "field testing" a potential new rule.

We'll see, but I wouldn't hold my breath.