2009 ASA Rule Changes Approved

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...Any defensive player may make a live ball appeal...

Did you mean dead ball appeal?

[NCASAUmp]

Will ASA publish a text list of all non-approved bats with stamps, similar to the one that is all-encompassing on the website?

This will make the list a LOT shorter!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Will ASA publish a text list of all non-approved bats with stamps, similar to the one that is all-encompassing on the website?

This will make the list a LOT shorter!

I'm pretty sure they already do that.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'm pretty sure they already do that.

Sort of. They currently have a list of non-approved bats, but the list includes the bats' pictures and turns it into 2 pages.

[Dakota]

What they don't have is a list of bats with stamps that are unapproved. That would be an even MORE helpful list with the requirement for a stamp. Bat check becomes:

1) Bat have a stamp? No - OUT.
2) Yes, is bat one of the 2 (or 10, but very short list) unapproved bats with a stamp? Yes - OUT
3) No - Allowed

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

What they don't have is a list of bats with stamps that are unapproved. That would be an even MORE helpful list with the requirement for a stamp. Bat check becomes:

1) Bat have a stamp? No - OUT.
2) Yes, is bat one of the 2 (or 10, but very short list) unapproved bats with a stamp? Yes - OUT
3) No - Allowed

Click here for ASA's Non Approved Bats with Certification Marks (2000 and 2004)

http://www.asasoftball.com/about/bui..._pics_2000.asp

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Click here for ASA's Non Approved Bats with Certification Marks (2000 and 2004)

http://www.asasoftball.com/about/bui..._pics_2000.asp

Thanks... jeez, the list is longer than I thought it would be!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Did you mean dead ball appeal?

Nope

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Nope

Then, I don't understand the change. Is it a technical change to the rule wording (since the RS already says ANY fielder...)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Then, I don't understand the change. Is it a technical change to the rule wording (since the RS already says ANY fielder...)

Maybe I'm misreading the change. Unfortunately, my committee assignments kept me away from those in which many of these changes were discussed.

This adds the bold wording: "If properly appealed by any defensive player during a live ball, the runner is out."

Since a proper live ball appeal will always include a defensive player, I'm reading this as adding the word "any" for some reason.

Maybe Steve or Darrell had the opportunity to sit in on a meeting where this was explained.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Yeah, you would think it is that obvious, that a live ball appeal must be made by a defensive player, with the ball, touching a player or missed base, who verbalizes or otherwise indicates the intent to appeal. But the rule 8-7 F-I Effect 2 only says properly appealed, and defensive team, and I can only assume that some ucking fidiot (Sorry, John , but it fits) anally read that one section without any context and allowed a coach or someone else to verbalize what the appeal was.

This was Bernie's, and people generally accepted his position that it was unclear as written.

[AtlUmpSteve]

I am going to disagree with Mike's statement that unreported subs will have no penalty. All of the penalties and effects in Rule 4-6.C (1-9) described, remain, EXCEPT that there unreported sub is now NOT disqualified as a secondary effect.

So, if appealed after hitting, but before a following pitch or play, treat as a reported sub that has (effectively) now batted out of order. If appealed after making a play defensively, the offense has the option of the result of the play or nullifying the play (a do-over assuming the prior count).

As it used to be.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I am going to disagree with Mike's statement that unreported subs will have no penalty. All of the penalties and effects in Rule 4-6.C (1-9) described, remain, EXCEPT that there unreported sub is now NOT disqualified as a secondary effect.

I guess that depends on what you think is a "penalty". For subpara 3, yes.

So, if appealed after hitting, but before a following pitch or play, treat as a reported sub that has (effectively) now batted out of order.

Okay, but that isn't a penalty for the Unreported Sub. It is an out that probably wouldn't have occurred, but it also is ruling another player out, not the one who violated the rule. BTW, I'm not completely sure this is "never" the player's fault especially in adult ball.

Look at the effect for subpara 4, 5 & 6. If s/he is not DQ'd, there is no longer a need to replace her/him on a base in other situations?

I cannot remember which committee (Slow Pitch rules, maybe) where someone was asked "What is the penalty?" when noted that DQ was too severe a penalty. The response was to the effect that they believed it would be an out.

I'm curious as to how close the author looked at the effects before proposing the changes.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...This was Bernie's, and people generally accepted his position that it was unclear as written.

That is what I was getting at with the technical correction comment.

There is this wording in the rule book:

When the runner leaves a base to advance to another base before a caught fly ball has touched a fielder, provided the ball is returned to an infielder and properly appealed.

(8-7-F)