I like the strike mat in SP.. lets stop pretending about the whole strike thing.. put a mat there..like everyone already does and plays with all year until they get to Nats.. and lets get it over with.

I like the foot in the box rule..

I prefer 10 after 4 in FP.

I would prefer it if they left the wording of the crash rule exactly as it is.


On the bunt definition.... :rolleyes: Its fine..let it be. Worse that the proposed clarification would be picking it apart pretending bunt is unclear.

I like moving towards charging pitchers a ball on certain violations instead of IP. You'll get better enforcement if it is not such a deadly harsh penalty IMO.

Any erasing lines rule proposals should be erased.

I do like keeping runners on the bases (or vicinity) for catcher conferences proposal.

No need to mess with the catchers box.

I like the Gorilla Gold rule.. not necessarily the rule..but a rule. ASA needs to get off the fence because there is no uniformity of enforcement. Just opinion. Allow it or ban it, but rule on it (please no pretending that they have ruled on it, because they havent). And yes I've seen it in JO.. were it is promptly decided to be illegal.. and Mens where it is promptly decided to be legal. Thats lame so rule on it.

Metal Cleats, bring em. At 16's+ I say allow them. Like I predicted last year, it was a nightmare running into them all summer long. I even have run into them in fall ball "I thought ASA changed that."

Forget the coaches dress rule.. because it will be just my luck that I run into a partner that enforces it.

Really? That was marked for ALL games, including FP/MP!!! What do you say now?

I believe the Run Rule change was meant to bring it into line with ISF.

So, you have no problem with a runner scoring by wiping out a catcher without the ball?

Without a doubt.

Have you run into a problem with this?Obviously, it doesn't affect FP, so why would you care? If you saw the 18U Gold, you would have noticed an abbreviated catcher's box.

Well, the first problem here is that some tried to "think". I didn't think that was allowed in CA? :D Just kidding!

I would think this would be more of a problem with the opposing coach trying to find any type of ridiculous edge demand an ejection fo a coach not in what s/he thinks is proper. But, that wouldn't be my problem as I would immediately direct that coach to the TD :rolleyes:

I say the more strikes, the better! :D Pitch at the shoelaces, hits the mat, STRIKE 3! I like it! :D

Heck, bkbjones will ring that pitch up right now, even without the mat!

;) :D

Something we all need to consider is that these are just recommendations. Outside of Irish, and maybe a few others, very few people in this forum will have any say in what the powers that be will decide at the get together (whatever ASA calls it).

This has been a good, relatively friendly, healthy debate, but when all is said and done, we will all call whatever the 'powers that be' decide to tell us to call.

Uckin Fay baby, that's a backwards K and that means it's one out closer to Miller Time. To paraphrase some baseballer from way back, "I don't need a mat to call a strike. I might not now what the strike zone is but I know one when I see one."

Another apocryphal story has to do with some old time umpire, Bill Klem or Bill McGowen or Bill Silves. Anyway, batter turns around after a strike call that seemed a bit iffy. "Where's the strike zone, blue?" the ignorant batter asks. The brilliant umpire says, "Why, it's where I say it is. Play ball."

To be honest? No, I really dont see this as an issue. I like the leeway of not having to make a call on a crash when the defender doesnt have the ball and it falls short of OSC.

Why would I want that discretion taken away from me?

Not really..

That too..either way, I got other things to do than be a fashion consultant.

You would allow a crash without the ball, but you wouldn't allow the crash with the ball :confused:

Just to make sure we are on the same page. A defender is standing anywhere (nowhere near the runner's path) and the runner alters their route to crash into that player for whatever reason. Or maybe a player is a little too close to the basepath and the runner decides s/he is going to teach that player a lesson or is just being an ***, and plows that player over.

Even to the point of USC, you have no problem with that? BTW, there is no discretion being taken away from anyone. If anything, it gives the umpire the discretion to rule a runner out for such an act which may be borderline USC. As it is right now, a runner could literally coldcock a defender during the play for any reason and the only authority the umpire has is to eject them after the play. The umpire cannot call an out and must allow the run if that player scores on the play.

I consider it lobbying our representatives before the vote and recreational b_itching after the vote. The first is productive, the second is fun.

Both are good.

The defender should not be there without the ball.

A runner altering their route to plow a defender is USC.

Look at this one, F6 is standing in a position, runner crashes her.

I am to expect a runner to slide at the 30' mark between the bases?

A catcher is 15' up the line without the ball? Runner slide?

No, I dont have a problem with it to the point of USC. Why should I?

I believe the proposed change most certainly removes discretion. I know it when I see it, I dont need or want a medium penalty for nonUSC crash.


I can act right now on borderline USC anytime I want. I tell the coach and/or player to chill it. I dont need a rule to enforce a penalty on borderline USC. It is or it isnt.. if its close I can tell them to chill.



The "only" :confused:

As they should, the defender doesnt have the freakin ball.

I feel a "its for the children..." coming on...

Actually, not at all though it could apply. This is nothing new as it was once a "Henry said" rule which was supported by a case play.

BTW, "obstruction" is not Klingon for "free shot".

But I'm tired of talking to the wall. If this change doesn't pass, just remember the next time the tying run scores in the bottom of the 13th with 2 outs that if she wipes out the catcher with the ball in the outfield, you may be going to the 15th.

Or if it passes, just remember that at the bottom of the 13th with 2 outs and the WINNING run wipes out the catcher, the same thing happens.

Though, I think I'd rather have the latter than the former.

One of the "problems" -- just as it was for obstruction and other matters in the past -- is that all 8,000 or however many umpires we have in ASA don't (or won't) call the same thing the same way. For instance, in a national I worked about five or so years ago a catcher was trying to throw out a runner attempting to steal third base. The batter did nothing at all intentional, but the thrown ball struck the bat. I had a nothing. My partner, however called a dead ball and ruled the runner out for batter's interference.

Even though it wasn't his call, and in my judgement was not interference, he insisted. Of course the coaches wanted the UIC there immediately. The UIC upheld his umpire's call. I was mad as hell but I got over it.

Now, of course, we don't have to judge intent.

I know unsportsmanlike conduct when I see it. I know an unintentional crash from someone intentionally trying to take someone out. Alas, some of our brethren either don't, because they don't, or won't for fear of some consequence, make the call. Hence, it may very well have to be legislated whether we like it or not.

IMHO, no need for the legislation.

:confused: Unless it was strike 3 on the batter, why was the runner out?

Because bkbjones was working with "that guy." You all know him. :D