Is this right ? - Page 3

FullCount · #31 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 01:52pm

Speaking ASA. Starting in 2009 there's no longer in leeway for interpretation. I believe that prior to the 2009 rules that a pitcher could step on the plate with hands together and then remedy the situation by stepping back of the plate with both feet prior to separating their hands. I realize that many umpires in this area called that illegal but I don't think the rules supported the IP. However, we were told in the NUS here in the DFW area that the 2009 pitching rules were specifically modified to clear that very issue up and remove all variations in application of the rule. Per their discussion and specific statement, under the 2009 rules it is illegal for a FP pitcher to step on the pitchers platewith hands together. Walt S.'s comment was "we all knew that it was illegal but this just made the rules clear and to match how it was being called in games." His discussion suggested that the rule clarification was help eliminate argument from coaches primarily.

Tru_in_Blu · #32 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 02:09pm

The 2009 rule change does indeed make this clear cut. I was quoting from the ASA 2008 rule book. I've now printed out all the changes from the ASA site.

Much nicer now and I'm glad ASA cleaned this one up.

Ted

CajunNewBlue · #33 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 02:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota

Why would someone from Cajun territory be a Dookie?

Just askin'.

Because I have exceptional taste.

(most of the time people take exception to my taste) but i digress. ohh yeah and my mom lives in the raleigh area... chapel hill, so im told (never been there)

CajunNewBlue · #34 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 02:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

(But, I still contend that she can step off before she separates to remedy. That ends the action and makes her prior engagement NOT taking a pitching position.)

I wish I could agree with you by rule.. I do in fact agree with you on this, based on principle and spirit of the rule.

I also wish the "NFHS powers that be" would allow the pitcher a way "out" if she does violate a thruf before she release the ball... and a pretty solid way would be to allow a legal disengagement.

I also wish I wasn't so cheap and would buy a winning powerball ticket.

NCASAUmp · #35 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 02:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

Because I have exceptional taste.

(most of the time people take exception to my taste) but i digress. ohh yeah and my mom lives in the raleigh area... chapel hill, so im told (never been there)

Well, if you're ever up this way, let me know. I'm in said area, and we can hoist some beers together.

AtlUmpSteve · #36 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 02:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota

Speaking NFHS, what do you do with the case play I cited above? The case play states that once she steps onto the plate with the hands together, it is an IP.

When calling NFHS, I follow the approved ruling. Speaking academically, I believe the approved casebook ruling contradicts the written rule, for the reasons I have given.

CajunNewBlue · #37 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 02:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Well, if you're ever up this way, let me know. I'm in said area, and we can hoist some beers together.

definitely... BTW: we gotta have crawfish with that.

Dakota · #38 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 02:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

When calling NFHS, I follow the approved ruling. Speaking academically, I believe the approved casebook ruling contradicts the written rule, for the reasons I have given.

I actually made very nearly the same argument about disengaging a couple of years ago on the NFHS forum. I was made to realize that this was not the NFHS interpretation. They want the IP in this kind of situation to be enforced before the pitch can start.

CajunNewBlue · #39 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 03:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota

I actually made very nearly the same argument about disengaging a couple of years ago on the NFHS forum. I was made to realize that this was not the NFHS interpretation. They want the IP in this kind of situation to be enforced before the pitch can start.

And it looks like ASA is following suit. bout time they realize that NFHS is leading the way....

NCASAUmp · #40 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 03:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

definitely... BTW: we gotta have crawfish with that.

I've got a big enough pot to cook it in! My old roommate was from Louisiana (near Fort Polk), and he loved cooking gumbo. I, of course, didn't mind eating it one bit.

CajunNewBlue · #41 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 03:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I've got a big enough pot to cook it in! My old roommate was from Louisiana (near Fort Polk), and he loved cooking gumbo. I, of course, didn't mind eating it one bit.

hrmmm... gumbo!! ok, now im hungry!! maybe i can talk the pregger into making some chicken and sausage gumbo after i call my 4:30 game.

AtlUmpSteve · #42 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 04:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

And it looks like ASA is following suit. bout time they realize that NFHS is leading the way....

The one individual quoted above as saying that was the ASA rule said that previously, too. As a member of the 2008 ASA Playing Rules Committee, I can tell you that was NOT the intent of the rule revision, nor does it say so.

In both rule sets, the written rules allow the pitcher to disengage prior to starting a pitch. While there is (unfortunately) a casebook ruling in NFHS, there is not in ASA.

As a rule of thumb, there are numerous contradictory opinions on the NUS; only KR can issue a written interpretation.

CajunNewBlue · #43 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 04:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

The one individual quoted above as saying that was the ASA rule said that previously, too. As a member of the 2008 ASA Playing Rules Committee, I can tell you that was NOT the intent of the rule revision, nor does it say so.

In both rule sets, the written rules allow the pitcher to disengage prior to starting a pitch. While there is (unfortunately) a casebook ruling in NFHS, there is not in ASA.

As a rule of thumb, there are numerous contradictory opinions on the NUS; only KR can issue a written interpretation.

erm I was referring to "fullcounts" post when I elluded to ASA following suit. but it really doesnt matter... its 72 degrees out, its sunny with a 5-10 mph breeze, and its softball time.

Peace

FullCount · #44 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 04:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

The one individual quoted above as saying that was the ASA rule said that previously, too. As a member of the 2008 ASA Playing Rules Committee, I can tell you that was NOT the intent of the rule revision, nor does it say so.

In both rule sets, the written rules allow the pitcher to disengage prior to starting a pitch. While there is (unfortunately) a casebook ruling in NFHS, there is not in ASA.

As a rule of thumb, there are numerous contradictory opinions on the NUS; only KR can issue a written interpretation.

Curious Steve- I'm getting confused. What was not the intent of the rule revision? To what are you referring?

IRISHMAFIA · #45 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 12, 2009, 05:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullCount

Curious Steve- I'm getting confused. What was not the intent of the rule revision? To what are you referring?

If I remember correctly, the change in ASA was a result of a direct challenge (not in a game) by a coach who pointed out that there was no requirement in the book which supported the routine umpire's ruling that a pitcher step onto the pitcher's plate with the hands separated.