ASA Rule Changes

[NCASAUmp]

Not sure I'm happy with the possibility of a 1-1 count in SP. Is the game REALLY taking that long? C'mon... Most SP games are done in an hour, give or take 5 minutes.

And considering my previous post, I'd say I've got a pretty good gauge on how long a SP game should take.

[topper]

Don't see the unreported sub change on either list. Did it make too much sense to be considered?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by topper

Don't see the unreported sub change on either list. Did it make too much sense to be considered?

In my observations on the subcommittees I observed, it will probably pass.

The other rule changes I think need to happen that now look like they won't are 43' for 16U FP, and a 10 second rule for batters.

To those of you unfamiliar with the process, the proposed rule changes go through numerous subcommittees. On Wednesday, proposed playing rule changes go to the Playing Rules Committee and propsed Code changes to the Legislative Committee. Each of those committees present a "Consent Agenda" of recommendations to the full council, after hearing the subcommittee recommendations (but not required to agree or adopt those opinions).

On Thursday, the full council (about 280 voting members, right now) will vote; but, it requires a 60% plus 1 majority to override the recommendations of the "main" committeess. There are 70 votes on the Playing Rules Committee (I am one); there are 63 votes on Legislative.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...The other rule changes I think need to happen that now look like they won't are 43' for 16U FP, and a 10 second rule for batters.

Curious about the 10 second rule. Why do you think a change there needs to happen?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Curious about the 10 second rule. Why do you think a change there needs to happen?

The current ASA rule allows the batter to wait for 10 seconds after directed in the box by the umpire; and, it isn't standard to direct the batter into the box until there has been a substantial delay, and that might take 10 seconds or so from the time the ball has been returned to the pitcher. The end result is that batters can take up to, or even longer than 20 seconds to get ready, while the pitcher is required to pitch with 20 seconds.

While game management skills can keep these from being in conflict, not everyone displays those skills. I find that what often results is a cat and mouse game of one-upmanship; batter stays out, pitcher waits for batter, batter asks for time, and on. This issue has been recently addressed by both NCAA (first) and (then) NFHS, by making the batter be ready to hit within 10 seconds of the return of the ball to the pitcher. This gives the pitcher at least 10 seconds to decide when to pitch and be in compliance.

In my opinion, this is a better game management tool and allows a better game flow and tempo to occur than the current ASA rule. Not always an issue, but more of an issue in some ASA games than NFHS or NCAA, because of the rule differences. One foot in the box doesn't mean ready to hit within 10 seconds, and the 10 seconds works better, IMO.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...While game management skills can keep these from being in conflict, not everyone displays those skills....

This is the crux, IMO. I have few problems keeping the batters from lollygagging and keeping the batter/pitcher mind games to a minimum, but I agree not all exhibit these skills.

For one thing, I consider slow-to-get-ready batters to be a team characteristic, and not an individual batter (or worse, at-bat) characteristic. What I mean by that is once a batter for a team has earned the warning to get ready, they are all on a short leash for lollygagging.

Maybe from a bigger picture perspective it is needed, but for me, it is unnecessary.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

While game management skills can keep these from being in conflict, not everyone displays those skills.

I understand what you are saying, and I honestly don't care either way. But from my experience, the umpires that don't have game management skills enough to get the batters into the box and ready to hit with the rules as they are today won't have the "ability" (substitute stones, guts, gohonas(SP?)) to enforce this rule if it was passed.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Don't see the unreported sub change on either list. Did it make too much sense to be considered?

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

In my observations on the subcommittees I observed, it will probably pass.

Ooh, sorry I missed that one. I agree with Steve, this will most likely pass.

The 1-1 count seems to be a positive change. Too many people think this is a speed-up rule. It is not. It is a rule change to encourage the batters to put the ball into play. Games with a 3-2 count are not that much shorter than games with a 4-3 count.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The 1-1 count seems to be a positive change. Too many people think this is a speed-up rule. It is not. It is a rule change to encourage the batters to put the ball into play. Games with a 3-2 count are not that much shorter than games with a 4-3 count.

I couldn't disagree more. I call in two leagues, one that starts with a 1-1 and one that starts with the regular 0-0 count. The league with the 1-1 quite consistently has their games end much sooner than the league that doesn't go with the 1-1. Remember that 13-inning game that ended in an hour and 25 minutes? Yep, 1-1.

Look the games are short enough as it is: usually an hour, give or take 5-10 minutes. Most SP tournaments are able to keep with the schedule with only a few going over their time slots.

I do see the advantage that a 1-1 gives a pitcher, as the batters won't wait until they have 1 or 2 strikes before taking a swing. They become less "choosey" and more willing to hit a ball that isn't their "perfect pitch."

Still, I think it's unnecessary. Do we really want 45-minute games? Hell, I've even had 30-minute games with a 1-1.

It's just silly. Leave it alone.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I couldn't disagree more. I call in two leagues, one that starts with a 1-1 and one that starts with the regular 0-0 count. The league with the 1-1 quite consistently has their games end much sooner than the league that doesn't go with the 1-1. Remember that 13-inning game that ended in an hour and 25 minutes? Yep, 1-1.

Of course, that couldn't be because one team has a better defense to handle the ball being put into play more often, could it?

Look the games are short enough as it is: usually an hour, give or take 5-10 minutes. Most SP tournaments are able to keep with the schedule with only a few going over their time slots.

The game is 7 innings unless one team is dominant which would happen regardless of the count.

I do see the advantage that a 1-1 gives a pitcher, as the batters won't wait until they have 1 or 2 strikes before taking a swing. They become less "choosey" and more willing to hit a ball that isn't their "perfect pitch."

Which is sort of the idea. It isn't as though the change only took away a strike. It also took away a ball. The game isn't about the perfect pitch, it is about a pitch which is either a strike or a ball. If FP is 4-3, why shouldn't a game in which it is much easier to pitch and the pitch is much easier to hit be the same?

Still, I think it's unnecessary. Do we really want 45-minute games? Hell, I've even had 30-minute games with a 1-1.

Then the players in your area must suck. The game in my area with a 1-1 count take 60-75 minutes unless abbreviated by a run rule.

But this should make you happy. The proposed rule change has be amended to exclude the Masters and Senior games.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Then the players in your area must suck. The game in my area with a 1-1 count take 60-75 minutes unless abbreviated by a run rule.

Rubbish! The players in my area can actually get outs.

But seriously, I don't think the game of SP needs to be modified like this. Same kind of thinking that went behind the 4' wide batters' boxes.