Proposed ASA Rule Changes #1
 

Strike Mat - A 19X34.5 mat to be placed over the plate. And ball which strikes the mat is a strike.

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

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

(SP only) Base on Balls – Change a walk to 3 balls instead of 4 for a walk.

As usual, numerous changes of the FP pitching distance to 43’ for numerous levels of play.

Change SP dimensions of bases and PP to 70’ & 53’, respectively

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

Add a second HP for Coed ball.

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

Include dents with burrs and visible cracks as a reason to exclude a bat as legal.

A few proposals requiring the manner or material of which bats are constructed.

Eliminating the white ball by 2010

Eliminate the 11’ ball in the coed game.

Numerous proposals concerning metal spikes from adding them for different FP age levels to banning them for men’s adult SP.

Allow the EP to play defense placing 11 players on the field. The rule change specifically notes 5 infielders & 4 outfielders.

Eliminate disqualification for an unreported substitute violation.

Require coaches to be in proper dress. Eliminates any cut-offs or jeans.

“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. Note: If either team is charged with a conference, runners are no longer restricted to the area near their base.

Set HR limits for the different classification of the women’s SP game.

More than a handful of proposals changing the HR allowance for different classes of the men’s and coed SP.

Change to eliminate the half-inning ending penalty for excess HR as too severe while there is also a change to add the penalty to the men’s C level.

Change FP run ahead to 15 after 3, 12/4 & 7/5, SP Men’s A 20/4, 15/5

Establish a pitcher’s box for SP

Change the maximum height for SP pitch to 10’

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

Allow FP pitchers to use Gorilla Gold.

To allow 6 warm-ups in the co-ed game, 3 with each ball

Allow an unlimited batting order in Girl’s B FP and all FP pool play.

SP – batter assumes a 1-1 count when they enter the batter’s box.

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

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

In SP under “The batter is out” After a second strike, excluding a foul ball that is hit after one strike”.

A handful of proposals eliminating stealing from SP

Make an allowance in the rules to address a deflected ball from leaving the field in fair territory.

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

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

Allow the JO courtesy runner rule to apply to ALL fastpitch.

To include “Guidelines to Lightning Safety” in Rule 10
<O:p</O:p

90% of those got a "yikes" reaction from me.

This proposed rule includes replacing that requirement with the 10 second requirement to return to the box.

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

Strike Mat - A 19X34.5 mat to be placed over the plate. And ball which strikes the mat is a strike. Is this for all SP?

(SP only) Base on Balls – Change a walk to 3 balls instead of 4 for a walk.
Change SP dimensions of bases and PP to 70’ & 53’, respectively
Add a second HP for Coed ball.

for all 3 of the above: Why? :confused::p

Establish a pitcher’s box for SP Is this like the new NCAA FP box? If so, I don't like that idea.

Change the maximum height for SP pitch to 10’ *shrugs* No real opinion either way.

SP – batter assumes a 1-1 count when they enter the batter’s box. Why not just change to a 3-2 count? :confused:

In SP under “The batter is out” After a second strike, excluding a foul ball that is hit after one strike”. So much for speeding up games. :p

The best proposal of the bunch. Punishing a player for doing what they're told never made much sense.

No, for "all games". Yeah, I know. :D But remember, this is only a definition, not a rule change.

To bring some sort of defense back in the game. Infielders are already playing deep and the standard double play has almost disappeared at some levels of the game. It isn't that big a deal, it is barely more than a runner's stride.

Quote:

Add a second HP for Coed ball.

safety

Quote:

Establish a pitcher’s box for SP

I doubt the NCAA has a SP pitching box. This is a rectangle that is 6' deep from the front of the PP and 24" wide. The pitcher may start their pitch with a foot anywhere in that box.

Too much confusion and would need to create an entire set of rules just for SP and the count. In previous efforts, this has been shown as the most acceptable wording understood by the council members.

How is this punishing the player? To me, it punishes the team and the manager's strategy. Do you suggest you just ignore it?

This is a rule that has been implemented in senior play. As Mike said, it's a 2'x6' area from which the pitcher may deliver a pitch. Just picture a big pitcher's plate, and apply all of the regular rules we'd normally apply to a 24"x6" plate: must come to a stop for 1 second, must have one foot on the plate (well, box), if a step is taken... blah blah blah.

It gives the pitchers an extra 6' if they so desire, and I actually support this idea. Teams always complain about the hot bats, and every little bit of reaction time can be helpful.

At the Senior Men's Nationals, we used this rule for the first time, and it was never an issue. Since there are no physical lines, judging whether a pitcher is in "the box" is left to umpire's judgment, and field crews don't have to do anything different to prep the fields.

Most of the time, if a pitcher starts to get behind after pitching from the back of the box, they almost always go back to the actual plate and pitch from there.

I personally think this is a great idea, one of the few rule changes I support.

Always, I have thought, the COACH should go.

Good change, IMO.

Sounds like ASA must be losing business in the SP area to USSSA. This has been a rule of theirs, probably since their inception. I know going back to the 70's at least.

Personally, I feel as though they have changed it where it really needed to be changed.

Another good change, IMO.

No need, is there? I have never seen this as a real problem in the safety arena. If you do it for co-ed, why not for all of SP?

Unnecessary and OO.

I've wondered why it made it this long.

Another non-issue being made into one. Again, MO.

Why not warn on first offense, and toss the coach on the second offense? This is a rule that would make more sense than to punish the player or entirely ignore the offense altogether.

This will be real popular in Bubbaville!

Reasoning?

There must be some folk with too much time on their hands.

Another USSSA based adjustment. Will they eventually term the height requirement "from the point of release" as USSSA does?

This one makes sense.

Why would they want to??? That totally defeats the logic of pitching in FP. This rule change is about as dumb as any pitcher or pitching coach who would want to use GG in the first place.

Yup. Another USSSA based idea.

OO.

Now this one I actually like.

It punishes the player by not allowing him/her to participate in the game based on a violation committed by the coach. The team can be punished by nullifying a defensive play made by the unreported sub or getting an out when discovered on offense. Afterwards the player is placed in the lineup. We don't disqualify players for BOO, which is a similar violation.

What an inane question.

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.

Proposals I like (ref: JO fastpitch game only):
Good. Eliminates the silly (IMO) prior notification requirement.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Tell your NFHS reps to get a life.

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

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

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

Proposals that make me say WTF???

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...

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

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

??? The rule already allows this.

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.

Oprah?

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? :eek:

And exactly what is wrong with making the optic yellow ball mandatory?? considering the number of leagues that play under poor or variable light conditions - be it poor night lighting, or just playing into the dusk, its about time! One league around here switched to an OY ball, and after the usual 'OOH..we're playing with a girls ball' crap, everyone settled down - when all realized how much better ALL could see the ball, including US...and STFU....

Next up - the ridiculousness of NOT going to all grey slacks...

Dont get me started on the foolishness surrounding grey slacks..ASA should be wearing blue and to hell with the whining of the college umpires who dont want to buy an extra color. Hell even the WCWC uses the correct color!

The point is, why mandate it? Around these parts everyone, SP and FP alike, have been using the optic yellow ball for years. I am sure, though, that there are still some leagues using the white balls. I don't see any reason to penalize these leagues. The rule is fine just as it is now.

Too late. The ridiculousness/foolishness has now begun. :rolleyes:

The rationale to mandate it by the rule proposal author(s) are increased visibility, increased safety due to the better visibility, and an assumption that cost would decrease if there were fewer types of balls on the market and in inventory.

You can have your greys.

As stated, my perspective is JO fastpitch. From the time my DD stated playing in 10U, lo those many years ago, until now, I have never seen anything other than optic yellow used in a game. Never.

If safety is the issue, why not also ban gloves that do not have a pocket?

Wait, that would be a silly rule since no one uses a glove without a pocket. See my first sentence.

Quite obviously, the JO fastpitch game isn't the intended perspective; it is the 99.9 majority. The womens, FP game also is 99.9 optic. However, men's fastpitch and all levels of slowpitch primarily use white; because they have always used white, because they perceive the optic as the "girl's ball", and because they continue to buy what is available. They have not experienced the visibility (and this safety) advantage, so have made no effort to ask for it.

If the majority of manufacturers changed their production to optic yellow, there would be less inventory items, and less production line changes, thus the perceived cost advantages. Optic yellow 12" balls with .470 .COR, optic yellow 12" balls with .440 .COR, optic yellow 11" balls with .470 .COR, and optic yellow 11" balls with .440 .COR. All currently in production; there is one proposal for Slow Pitch to play with .400 .COR, a ball previously approved with blue stitches. They get to stop making and inventory the five (5) white versions of these (there are two 11" .470 balls, one with white threads, and one with red threads).

The proposal is to be effective 1/1/2010, to allow leagues, teams, suppliers and manufacturers alike a year to dispose of inventory. It isn't my proposal, but it sounds well thought out to me. It may have minimal impact on you, personally; but the JO FP teams may get better prices for the same ball for a longer time if this passes, while the others get the benefit of a more visible and safer ball.

So, what's the downside making this an issue to you, Tom?

How about because you look like a 1st grader who has pissed their pants when you sweat?

How about the accompanying dark shirt helps the umpire sweat even more?

How about the lack of contrast between the powder blue shirt and heathers makes for a very dull and unauthoritive look on the field?

Of course, just my opinion. You can disagree, but you cannot tell me I'm wrong.

I commented on it because in my view it is a silly rule change since nobody uses white.

And, as you explain the rationale, I am even more convinced it is silly. Somebody has a well-intentioned bug up their butt over the choices other people are making. As I said originally, get a life. Either that, or go after the real safety issue in the men's game - hot bats.

Sure I can... you're wrong. See? That wasn't hard! :D:D:D

Actually, you would be wrong. I saw just as many white balls, maybe more, than optic yellow in the past year.

They did. They want to make Gorilla Gold legal so the players won't have to carry around the syringes they use to inject it into the glove :D

I said several times my comments were from a JO fastpitch perspective only.

But the rule change applies to all, not just JO.

At times, yes.

Depends on when they're worn. It's best to pick your spots for these.

I believe uniform colors have less impact on this than athleticism and how an official carries him/herself on the field.

This last statement is something I must disagree with. While the uniform does not make the umpire better, a professional appearance does greatly influence how others will perceive you. Ask any soldier, "does polishing your boots make you a better soldier?" The answer is, "yes, because I polish my boots." There is NOTHING like a sharp-looking umpire on the field, and while a sharp uniform will not make your calls better or give you a greater understanding of the rules, it will influence how you are perceived on the field.

I'm no fashion expert. I leave that to my wife. However, the heather grey and powder blue is such a bland combination that it gives the umpire zero presence on the field. On the other hand, I'd hate to have ASA completely change up the uniforms. I've already got over $750 invested in shirts, shorts and pants alone, and I'm not about to spend it all again.

That's not sweat. That's real urine, cuz I just found out I'm gonna get to see SRW's flying safe sells from 58 feet away (that's assuming I trail the runner at least two feet up the line).

I can disagree and tell you you are wrong.

There is nothing inherently unauthoritative about heather gray.

If there is anything ruining the "authoritative look" that would be power blue, which is associated with a baby.

Gray is used at every level just fine.

All one has to do is google an umpire in gray vs blue.. its not even close in what looks better.

If you want a dead on authoritative look, go black shirt, gray pants.

http://www.txsoftballhalloffame.com/100_0113.jpg


http://www.cowboyjoewest.com/Joe%20West_sm.jpg

there is no comparison.

Get away from the coed beer leagues irish, there is real ball being played.

I didn't mean to imply that looking sharp and professional wasn't important. I lump that into "how an official carries him/herself on the field". My mistake for the lack of clarity. I just don't think that color plays nearly as important a role as other factors, like the ones you point out yourself. IMO, looking sharp, like good judgement, hustle, and rules knowledge, should be a given for anyone wanting to be good at what we do. But it's only the starting point. As I'm sure you know, dealing with the unexpected and good game management is where our bones are made; regardless of how much your sweaty grey pants and powder blue shirt fail to compliment each other.

Hey, McCain, or are you Obama? Doesn't make any difference. Nice try, but I did not say the heathers were unauthoritative (thank you for spelling correction), did I. I stated an opinion that the combination with the powder blue shirt were.

Yet, the powder (you're welcome) blue shirt is still the official uniform shirt for many baseball and softball associations around the country, if not the world. We must be a bunch of panty wastes. :D

Sure, if you don't sweat.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but there are quite a few that disagree. And if I remember correctly, the last time those two fought, the blue won.

Again, I disagree, but just as you are, I am allowed. And if that is THE look, why is it your heroes where so many different colored shirts throughout the season?
A plate jacket. How cute! BTW, I've never understood the purpose of putting a number on an umpire's uniform. I thought the umpire was supposed to be invisible, so why a need to (for what I'm sure your answer is gonig to be) identify them?

Since you guys are exchanging spelling corrections, I thought I'd toss this in...

Unless you are talking about your laundry, the word is pantywaist. ;)

BTW, on wade's pic of the MLB umpire... it is the point that gives him the "authoritative look", so... nevermind... :cool:

It's the MLB's authoritative version of "pull my finger."

http://www.cowboyjoewest.com/Joe%20West_sm.jpg

Sometimes I feel that the people that make the decisions are too far removed from the working stiff umpires. When I do a tournament I will do around 8-10 games on a Saturday. By the time 3 p.m. rolls around, the area around home plate is usually reduced to moon dust. The lighter the color of my uniform the better it absorbs the dust without making me look like I just got hit with a dust grenade. Most of the time we'll switch to Navy shirts when the sun goes down but by that time I'm numb and don't care. We're not all calling double headers on Hall of Fame field, keep the light colors and let me worry about others respecting my authortay! I do just fine as it is.

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
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.

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

Eliminate disqualification for an unreported substitute violation.
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.

“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. Note: If either team is charged with a conference, runners are no longer restricted to the area near their base.
Comment: Needs better wording. What about other dead ball situations like injury delays, field maintenance delays, etc.

Allow an unlimited batting order in Girl’s B FP and all FP pool play.
Comment: Good change.


<O:p</O:p<!-- / message -->

Oh you're in for it now. :mad:

;) :D

Some comments on your comments...

I disagree that any of these need to be clarified; however, it would help if the RS clarified whether a drag bunt is a bunt. "Swing" and "slowly" are handled by umpire judgment, and I would imagine there would be considerable consistency in that. The phrase "bunt foul" in rule 7-6-G is pretty clear that it means "attempted bunt that goes foul."

Coach could do exactly the same thing now, only he'd have to tell the umpire before talking to his players. This is a good change, IMO, since the only thing the current rule prevents, that this allows, is the coach deciding to change pitchers after talking with the pitcher. I have no problem with allowing that. NFHS already allows this and it has not been a problem that I have seen.

Dumb, goofy rule change, IMO. Should not be approved at all. And what about the SS requesting time to talk the the pitcher, and the catcher joins them? Goofy rule.

Hey, look, Tony's still alive!!!

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

Eliminate disqualification for an unreported substitute violation.

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

That depends on whether pool play is for seeding or not and the ramifications of going short-handed being addressed.

I would be all right with a black shirt, and the MLB light blue w/black looks pretty cool too. Just not enough guys I work baseball with have one.
http://www.cowboyjoewest.com/Joe%20West_sm.jpg


You cheated and used a picture of a plate coat!:D

Man oh man, if I worked enough baseball in cold weather to justify the expense I would buy one in a heartbeat. To me it just looks awesome.

Or the softball organizations could just make it an option...:) And I said "option." Baseball guys can wear a pullover or long sleeve shirt, and softball umpires can do the same.

To summarize: I have no problems with gray pants. I just cannot see why this would be a big deal...

Okay....since there have been way too many posts to quote properly, lets review - first about the OY ball:

As somebody (Im not looking back and trying to find it!)said, if making the OY mandatory the next couple years makes things a little simpler for both the manufacturer AND user, whats the big deal???? OYIS SAFER...plus as I put it, if you are playing on an unlighted field, you might actually get to play a little bit longer as you get towards twilight. The people complaining about this are sounding like the TENNIS people, for cripe's sake, when that sport went from white to yellow! I find personally the OY is much more visible after several innings of usage - it simply stands out through the dirt better....

Now for the pants -

At the end of the 06 season, our local group decided to go to grey for the following reasons:

Yes, a lot of our people do college ball...and a lot do HS baseball, too...so if one is traveling from either to do an ASA game, heres no change of pants involved.


We do a lot of PONY tournaments locally, and PONY told us that we HAD to wear grey for those tournaments - so a lot of our people were going to have to buy grey anyways

The only fly in this ointment is that NYS hs softball still mandates the navy slacks - but then again , NYS only changes that sort of things when it absolutely HAS to -partially because many of the umpires who live in the North Country simply do not work a lot of games due to the weather. NY only abandoned the Elbecos when it became obvious that the Elbecos were simply not going to be available anymore.

As has been said before, NOTHING looks as crappy as the navy blue pants after working around HP in the dust for a few innings. And nothing is as HOT as those navy blues on a hot day, either. If you think the players care a flying cr*p about you having sweat stains, you are worrying about the wrong thing - besides, change pants in between games!

And in a similar vein, when we started going out there in the powder blue/grey combination...NOBODY CARED!! And we actually got a few compliments along the way....Before this year, a few of our 'elite' umps had got the grey and the dark navy tops, and starting to wear them to some night games -its a VERY sharp looking combination, and more of have started to do it. It does look very nice under the lights.... The dark navy top seems to be a slightly different mesh than the powder, and is not hot at ALL!
Again, the dark navy PANTS are definitely hotter than the heather grey - which is why I think the heather grey will win out in the end....


I think SOME of you would be very happy to go back to the heavy dark blue shirts and pants they wore back in the fifities....

Thanks for the story.

Here in Oregon, OSAA says light blue and heather gray, and I don't hear complaining about buying two sets of pants. And I think that combination looks just fine on the field. I guess I just don't buy into any of the reasons given for blue pants.

Heather gray might win out, but by that time I wonder if the charcoal grays won't be creeping into softball.

No one is talking about local ball. I'm talking about Championship Play.

AFA dirt on one's pants when working a dusty field, try looking below at your shoes. Shall we change them to tan or gray? Yeah, my blue pants get dirty and between the games, I hit them with the brush before I clean my shoes.

And, BTW, NCAA is powder over navy and have even a stricter policy than ASA.

And PONY in this area wear powder over navy.

And personally, if ASA goes to gray, that's fine by me ALA they get rid of the navy.

Just depends on whether you wanna work for Duffy or Garrett. :eek:

I understand the charcoal gray is now OK for school baseball here in Pa, and I'm hoping that goes over to softball. I'd prefer the darker gray over the heather gray - I think. I'm one of those who sweat - a lot. On a hot day, I'm soaked no matter what color pants I'm wearing. I prefer the darker colored navy because they do not show the wet.

As far as college ball goes, one of the groups I'm in seems to prefer the gray pants. The other almost insists on the navy.

As for PONY telling folks in NY to wear gray, that's local. According to their rule book, the standard uniform is navy pants & powder shirt - or so I think I read in the 2007 book. Although, most of the PONY ball I've done has been with gray pants.

I guess some folks like to look like high school umpires.

MIke, I wish I cared about ASA championship play. I'm in a district in Pa where the commissioner, to the best of my knowledge, has not sent any umpire outside of his district in a long time. Biased opinion, to be sure, but I am quite sure that I'm at least as good as more than 90% of the folks who get to work a national. The ASA ball - regionals & so on - that I have traveled to were because the uic called me and asked me to come. The eastern national that I did was run by this guy, so he wanted to make sure he looked good. I've got far more opportunity in high school ball, college ball, ISC ball than I'll ever get as long as this guy is in charge of this district in Pa.
Like I said, I wish I cared about ASA championship play - but since the opportunity is not there, I won't allow myself to care.

just for the record, I was never correcting his spelling and dont have a clue what you guys are talking about. I dont see where I mentioned it at all (nor did I even notice.

Joe west just plain looks cool... :) wasnt really fair pitting him up against some texas softball umps in blue...

Cant get rid of navy.

Heather + Navy = best ASA uniform. After a day of working.. put it on for the championship game, everyone loves it. I get more compliments in that uniform than any other. Powder is oK, its become a standard.. it doesnt look the best, but I agree, obviously it is definitely a standard umpiring color.

We need to go to the darker colors.

charcoal needs to creep in..
and ASA's OKC cowboy cut needs to run way.

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.

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

It was a fellow Oregonian that made the call.

As for Topper's question: She was out because of "interference" by the batter. It wasn't strike three on the batter, just a case of OOO.

Unfortunately, I'm not forum savvy enough to know what OOO means.

Unless I'm missing something, my question still stands - If it wasn't strike three, why is the runner called out for batter's interference?

Just say it Irish.. support this rule change or you want to harm children...

Cuz the 15th inning thing, no matter how horrible it sounds, is some lame rhetoric.

:D

No rule is ever a good rule unless you can use it to make children cry. Sprawled on the floor. While laughing. ;)

[shakes head slowly]
Overly Officious Official (Oregonian?:D). See also picking boogers, taking the dirty end of the stick, and calling anything and everything.

The answer is that nobody should be out on this play. The batter didn't do anything to interfere.

I think Topper's point is that when the UIC let the judgment stand he still should have come up with a penalty that matches the incorrect judgment. The batter interfered and therefore the batter is out not the runner.
________
Wellbutrin lawsuit settlements

No, the batter did not interfere. By the description the batter was standing where a batter normally stands, doing nothing out of the ordinary. If a throw hits the bat, play on. I'd have nothing as well.

And a UIC should not be making up penalties, especially when no rule is violated.

What the hell is it with this thread? Does no one read what is actually posted?

If the ruling was interference, the player causing the INT is to be ruled out. We understand that INT probably should not have been called. However, it was and the ruling was upheld. The penalty for INT by a batter is that the batter is ruled out, NOT THE RUNNER. All runners return to the last base touched at the time of the INT.

And Wade is just being his usual incomprehensible self. The "crash" rule is a safety issue. It can be USC in all cases. When the player has the ball, the runner is out regardless of intent to commit USC. All this change does is give the same physical protection to the player without the ball. Granted, the player is not supposed to be in the base path, but there are also rules in place protecting the runner. If you honestly believe a runner has a right to lay out a defender, IMO, you are working the wrong game.

You know, sometimes you are so full of crap irish. Why is that? Why are you built that way? As a state UIC you have potential.. and then, you come up with your BS when you have no argument. Stick to the facts.

I favor the rule as it is and have fended off your idiotic childish vitrol since. Do you have argument that is not vitrol? 15th innning and lay out the catcher.. that is so lame you should be ashamed of yourself to be using it as your banner argument for your little lame rule change.

Spare me your handwringing about the children and tell me why the heck I need an out if the defender does have the ball and potentially not even close to having the ball? A punitive out that every skinny little idiot 3B coach wants and argues for.. but doesnt know the rule... every time a runner brushes/knocks a little bit his catcher standing in the way.

its obs and you are whimping wanting an out for a little tap.

Thats the point of the rule.

We dont need an out and we can already eject them if it reaches that level.

Actually, my point is that the ruling was incorrect, forget about judgement. While I can do little about a partner missing calls, I will not allow my partner to kick a rule. Both umpires take the blame for this. The icing on the cake is the UIC upholding the ruling. All this happening at a National? Unfortunately, I am not surprised.