This sounds fine. I guess we gotta do whatever to cater to ADA, so thats a nonstarter, and the rule should be the same in all FP; thats they way they play anyway. ASA needs to make the mens FP exactly the way the men want them; then maybe ASA can regain some steam with the few who actually play mens FP.

So, what was meant by this was:

All FP divisions now use Courtesy Runners.

Any ADA player may have a Courtesy Runner, who can be any player in the lineup.

I read this, apparently like many others, to mean CR's for any position.

Then you need to read all of the posts.

If you check the Courtesy Runner rule, it clearly states that this is for pitcher and catcher only, but just JO. The rule change makes it all of FP.

Well, 24 bats on one list would bring it back down to a page, as opposed to the nearly 4-page list with 101 bats.

You know, that brings up an interesting question... What's going to happen to the "Approved Bats" list? Worth made a bat (SSEST, if I remember correctly) that's on the approved list, but not all of them have stamps. Some were simply manufactured prior to 2000.

<b>No penalty for an unreported substitute (as of now)</b>

I never understood why they changed this in the first place. I never liked that a legal sub coming in would get penalized. JMHO

Joel

OK, so the original "Men's FP catcher can use courtesy runner " is missing the word only, as in Men's FP catcher only can use courtesy runner
or
All FP levels have the CR rule like JO, except mens' pitchers.

I think I would wait for the official interp before assuming that. In the Playing Rules Committee, the chairperson opined that if both passed at the same time, the more overriding rule would apply, not the more limiting rule.

I don't believe the intent of the body was to allow CR for pitcher and catcher for all, and then immediately limit that. Both were approved by Consent Agenda at the Council without discussion, as each were considered a good change.

It will interesting to see how the NUS decides to address the discrepancy.

Wade,
I don't see that happening. ASA has not cared much for the men's game for years, and there are a couple of other organizations that do - they even cater to the men's game. ASA shot themselves in the foot the year that they required both feet on the rubber - for men. I know that it was to match the international rule, but it wasn't the game the players wanted. Even though that was only a 1-season/year foul-up, I think you'll find those other organizations made a big gain then.

They have lost about 80% of CA. Very few areas still have ASA mens FP.

Steve,

Some good discussions in the lobby last night. Already talk of adding a courtesy foul to the SP rule, but we already talked about that.

You are probably right about the men's FP pitcher, but you never know about these things. The one thing for certain is that it does not apply to all players, just those presently designated in the present JO rule.

I missed the rules portion of the Commissioners' Meeting, but from what I understand, KR addressed a handful of rules which will need to be massaged prior to implementation.

Apparently, there were some serious misunderstandings with a code change or two that will need to be addressed and clarified.

Leah O'Brien Amico stopped by for a while. Apparently, she is going to cover the BOD meeting for one of the player reps (maybe Stacey).

ISF report revealed that when a completed survey of all sports (softball finished in something like the top 40% of all sports in any category), it is believed that the IOC members never read this report since the results were too good to ignore.

Those in the know are cautiously optimistic as to the chances of getting back into the Olympics.

Thanks for the update on that mike!

Are these (or will these be) going to be posted online anywhere? I may pass these along to our SP "coach".

ASA will post the official rule changes, including explanations, on their web site in a few weeks. No doubt, someone will post a link here when that happens. I wouldn't distribute the postings here, since they are just a bit misleading in how some of them are worded, as evidenced by the discussions in this thread.

Dakota: Thanks for the adivce. I never do that anyways; I prefer to get rule changes from the source if possible (such as NCAA, NFHS sites, etc).

Generally speaking now: If SP is going to a 3-2 count (I'm not sure if there is a difference between using a 3-2 or starting at 1-1 :rolleyes:), I figure we better be prepared for that before our first game. If I do slow pitch stats again for my friends, I'm willing to bet there will be people surprised about the count change. :D

Definitely a good thing to go over in the pre-game conference.

And no, there's no difference between starting with a 1-1 count and having a maximum 3-2 count.