Proposed ASA Rule Changes #1

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There is nothing to replace. That requirement was never removed and always in effect.

Not exactly, Mike. The current ASA 10 second rule is based on when the umpire directs a batter into the batter's box. The 10 second requirement I am referencing is more in line with what NFHS and NCAA already have; the time starts when the pitcher receives the ball, or when the umpire directs, whichever applies first. This more specifically places a time limit to coaches giving unneeded and redundantly long strings of signals, guarantees the pitcher 10 seconds to pitch (to meet the 20 second rule).

If batters choose to use part of their 10 seconds to walk from and back to the box, no problem; it's their 10 seconds. But they must be in batting position; to me that means in the box, ready to hit, I don't care if they are holding up their hand asking for more time to perform rituals. If they say they aren't ready when the pitcher pitches, then they violated the 10 second rule anyway.

Much more effective, IMO, than the current rule.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Not exactly, Mike. The current ASA 10 second rule is based on when the umpire directs a batter into the batter's box. The 10 second requirement I am referencing is more in line with what NFHS and NCAA already have; the time starts when the pitcher receives the ball, or when the umpire directs, whichever applies first. This more specifically places a time limit to coaches giving unneeded and redundantly long strings of signals, guarantees the pitcher 10 seconds to pitch (to meet the 20 second rule).

If batters choose to use part of their 10 seconds to walk from and back to the box, no problem; it's their 10 seconds. But they must be in batting position; to me that means in the box, ready to hit, I don't care if they are holding up their hand asking for more time to perform rituals. If they say they aren't ready when the pitcher pitches, then they violated the 10 second rule anyway.

Much more effective, IMO, than the current rule.

A simple technicallity which can be rectified with a wording change next year. Nonetheless, the 10 second rule was never removed or different from as it was prior to the rule addition which required the player to keep a foot in the BB.

Personally, I believe this rule was added more along the lines of the batter getting directions from the coach by wondering down the line. And yes, it is the umpire's fault for not monitoring those situations better and using the existing rules to control the situation.

Remind me next year and we can try to get the rule amended.

[Dakota]

Proposals I like (ref: JO fastpitch game only):

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Charged Conference – It is not a charged conference if the pitcher is removed from the pitching position during a conference.

Good. Eliminates the silly (IMO) prior notification requirement.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Eliminate disqualification for an unreported substitute violation.

In the JO game, players enter the game when told to. This is a coaching brain cramp usually, and around here is brought on because 90% of the games played are under local bat the roster, unlimited sub rules, so the coach pays a high price for the learning curve in championship play.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Change FP run ahead to 15 after 3, 12/4...

I like adding the 12/4 rule to the book. (The 7/5... why???? Sounds suspiciously based on a single situation / game...)

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Changing the penalty for a pitcher’s 20 second violation to a ball on the batter, not an IP

Good, penalty was way too harsh for a delay violation.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Eliminate the requirement for the batter in the JO game to keep a foot in the box.

The keep the foot in is unnecessary. The 10 second time is sufficient for controlling wandering players.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Change the wording of the “crash rule” to eliminate the requirement of the fielder to have the ball at the time of the collision.

Good change for handling clueless / malicious baserunning. But, unless umpires actually call OBS for runners avoiding a fielder without the ball, this is a significant disadvantage to the offense.

[Dakota]

Proposals I don't like (again JO fastpitch):

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

A few proposals to penalize players or coaches for wiping out, erasing or whatever to any lines on the field.

Tell your NFHS reps to get a life.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Require a bat to be on the list AND have a valid certification stamp.
Eliminates all the older bats.

Is moot for most top fastpitch teams, but an unnecessary PITA (and possibly budget) for rec leagues. Probably a bigger benefit for slow pitch.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Eliminating the white ball by 2010

Again, get a life. Maybe they could eliminate gloves without a pocket while they're at it.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

“When the catcher requests time to speak to the pitcher, base runner may not abandon the vicinity of their bases without it being a charged offensive conference.

So, if two runners confer while the F1 and F2 are conferring this is a charged OC? Jeez-o-petes... get a LIFE!

[Dakota]

Proposals that make me say WTF???

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

So, what is a "drag bunt" under this definition? The ball is not swung at, but OTOH, the bat is not held in the path...

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Change the depth of the catcher’s box to 6’ from the back corners of the plate.

???? This will shorten the catcher's box by almost 6 feet from the current definition, cutting it in half. WHY?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Allow FP pitchers to use Gorilla Gold.

??? Must be a men's deal...

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Change in the assisting the runner violation to allow for assisting during a dead ball

??? The rule already allows this.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

???? This will shorten the catcher's box by almost 6 feet from the current definition, cutting it in half. WHY?

I'd venture a guess and say this one came from our ranks (meaning umpires and not a player). I can't tell you how many times I get catchers who push us all the way back, giving us a crappy view of the strike zone.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I'd venture a guess and say this one came from our ranks (meaning umpires and not a player). I can't tell you how many times I get catchers who push us all the way back, giving us a crappy view of the strike zone.

Can't say who gave him the idea, but it was actually proposed by a voting member from Delaware.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Can't say who gave him the idea, but it was actually proposed by a voting member from Delaware.

Oprah?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I can't tell you how many times I get catchers who push us all the way back, giving us a crappy view of the strike zone.

That is exactly it. This is, or should be, a non-issue in FP.

And you have conflicts within the NUS. Some saying you should never be in front of the catcher, while another telling you to establish a position in which you can see the strike zone and tell the catcher he can stand back there, but you aren't moving out of the way of the ball.

I believe this change will help make this situation manageable. The stand-up guys are off to the side, the crouching catchers within a reasonable range of the plate.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That is exactly it. This is, or should be, a non-issue in FP.

And you have conflicts within the NUS. Some saying you should never be in front of the catcher, while another telling you to establish a position in which you can see the strike zone and tell the catcher he can stand back there, but you aren't moving out of the way of the ball.

I believe this change will help make this situation manageable. The stand-up guys are off to the side, the crouching catchers within a reasonable range of the plate.

Couldn't submit a rule about crappy catchers stepping back onto my toes?

[wadeintothem]

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.... 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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

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

I prefer 10 after 4 in FP.

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

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

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

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.

Without a doubt.

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

Have you run into a problem with this?

No need to mess with the catchers box.

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.

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."

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

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

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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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

[SRW]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

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

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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

Have you run into a problem with this?

Not really..

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

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