Proposed NCAA Rule Changes

[IRISHMAFIA]

The NCAA Softball Rules Committee is considering on-site compression bat testing at preliminary rounds and the finals of the Divisions I, II and III championships by 2011.
For the last three years, bats have undergone extensive lab tests to measure their performance level at the end of the championships. Those tests were solely for research purposes, with the hope that rules officials could find a way to conduct examinations on-site to determine if a bat complies with NCAA specifications.
By NCAA standards, any bat having an exit speed higher than 98 mph does not comply.
“We’re trying to best predict which bats will fail when they go through the more expensive and time-consuming tests in the lab,” said Dee Abrahamson, the NCAA softball secretary-rules editor. “It involves conducting a compression test of the barrel. If that is a certain number, it is an indicator that the bat isn’t compliant.”
The compression test would be conducted by a portable machine, which is similar in size to a radar gun. Those machines cost about $500 compared to the $750 per bat it costs to conduct the more extensive tests in the lab.
“The next step is to take the machine to regional sites and at the final sites before the tournament begins,” said Abrahamson, senior associate athletic director at Northern Illinois. “We would be able to test a team’s entire selection of bats. We could pull out any bat that the machine indicates shouldn’t be used in play.”
Bats would also be subject to compression tests after a game.
Any bat found to be non-compliant would be removed and the student-athlete or team could be subject to championship misconduct penalties.

Okay, nothing new here. ASA has been hawking compression implements to local associations for around $700 for the same purpose.

The rules committee also reviewed pace-of-play issues and recommended that pitchers take only five warm-up throws between innings. The throws could all be to home plate or to any base as long as the number of throws does not exceed five.
In a recent trend, pitchers have been delivering to home plate, and the catchers have rolled the ball back simulating a bunt. The pitcher then throws the ball to a base as she would in live play.
“This was never meant to be fielding practice,” Abrahamson said. “If she wants to use her throws going to bases, that is fine, but she only gets five warm-up throws.”

What are the chances that some umpire is going to try to include the throw by infielder back to the pitcher?

The committee clarified what constitutes a called game when play conflicts with airline travel. Coaches must communicate the drop-dead time with the opposition and the umpire in the pre-game meeting. The game must go five innings (or four and a half if the home team is winning) to be an official game.

I guess the PU will need more space on their line-up card to record this

If a hitter is struck by a pitch while in the batter’s box, she will be awarded first base regardless if she tried to avoid being struck by the ball. Previously, the umpire had to judge whether the batter in the box tried to avoid being hit by the pitch. The umpire still can keep the batter in the box if, in his/her judgment, the batter initiated the contact by trying to get hit by the pitch.

Anybody think this wasn't a coach's idea?

Any coach who argues balls and strikes will be subject to ejection by the umpires.

Anybody think this one was?

The committee recommended new distances that fences should be from home plate. A permanent fence should be six feet high and be a minimum 190 in left and right field and 200 feet to center field. A temporary fence should be a minimum of four feet high and measure 210 down the lines and 230 to center field. Also, the committee clarified the foul-pole rule. The foul pole should extend 10 feet from the ground and should be immediately adjacent to or attached to the outside of the outfield fence.

This must be a result of the NCAA Championships, but obviously protects existing fields.

These still need to be reviewed by an oversight panel.

[SethPDX]

No arguing balls and strikes?

But, but, I'm the coach! Don't you know who I am!

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

No arguing balls and strikes?

But, but, I'm the coach! Don't you know who I am!

I'm psychic! Of course I do! You're that person I foresee sitting in the parking lot... Right about... Now.

[CelticNHBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Anybody think this wasn't a coach's idea?

Mike-

This has actually been the directive to umpires for a few years now. We (umpires, ok Emily) have been pushing to get the wording in the rules to align with what was reasonable to judge as an attempt to avoid being hit. The premise is that the ball does not belong in the batter's box. The reasoning behind the change was due to very inconsistent application of the hbp rule.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CelticNHBlue

Mike-

This has actually been the directive to umpires for a few years now. We (umpires, ok Emily) have been pushing to get the wording in the rules to align with what was reasonable to judge as an attempt to avoid being hit. The premise is that the ball does not belong in the batter's box. The reasoning behind the change was due to very inconsistent application of the hbp rule.

The inconsistent application I can buy, but to change a rule for that reason is ridiculous.

I think part of the issue is that too many people have bought into the coach's argument that it was the pitcher's fault because the pitch "froze" the batter. Bull!

While my primary game is presently SP, I've been doing this for a while, and I've never had a problem judging a batter's reaction, or lack of, to a pitched ball and that includes that little ball game.

And if the ball "does not belong in the batter's box", why do we rule on an unintentional batted ball if it hits the bat "in the batter's box"?

IMO, this is a weak.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The inconsistent application I can buy, but to change a rule for that reason is ridiculous.

I think part of the issue is that too many people have bought into the coach's argument that it was the pitcher's fault because the pitch "froze" the batter. Bull!

While my primary game is presently SP, I've been doing this for a while, and I've never had a problem judging a batter's reaction, or lack of, to a pitched ball and that includes that little ball game.

And if the ball "does not belong in the batter's box", why do we rule on an unintentional batted ball if it hits the bat "in the batter's box"?

IMO, this is a weak.

Allow me to throw in my perspective on this issue. A few years ago, there was a rash of batters finding ways on "avoiding" the pitch and still being hit. They did this by turning their backs to the ball as if to avoid the inside pitch, then leaning in. Coaches didn't like this, so we (the umpires) were put onto high alert, which resulted in a lot of "right here!" The reaction to this was the idea of being "frozen" to make the distinction between moving to avoid being hit, and moving to be hit. Thus leading to the inconsistent application. While I didn't see the two plays in this year's DI championship tournament, one resulted in an awarded base, the other resulted in no awarded base. The latter of the two (which I believe was the award) was highly contested by the DC.

Personally, I favor the proposed language. It removes all argument from the DC. I had one this year (DI game) in which the batter began her swing (stride and hips, keeping her hands "back" like a good hitter), the pitch was up and in and hit her in the chest. DC (who's name appears in the rule book of an amateur association we discuss frequently in this forum) said she initiated contact with the ball. The pitch was at least a foot inside the batter's box. New language keeps him quite.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Personally, I favor the proposed language. It removes all argument from the DC. I had one this year (DI game) in which the batter began her swing (stride and hips, keeping her hands "back" like a good hitter), the pitch was up and in and hit her in the chest. DC (who's name appears in the rule book of an amateur association we discuss frequently in this forum) said she initiated contact with the ball. The pitch was at least a foot inside the batter's box. New language keeps him quite.

Keeps him quite what?

I don't disagree with the point this quiets the DC, and may make an umpire's job somewhat easier. But should those be reasons to change what has been a standard for quite a while? If it is, would not eliminating the LBR also keep the DC quiet? Ohh, sorry, momentary sense of intelligent reasoning.

But the problem, and subsequent arguments, that will now be prevelant will still involve the batter "stepping" into the hit the ball and end up being hit by the ball and the umpire will STILL have to make a judgment similar to whether the batter attempted to avoid a pitch or not.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Keeps him quite what?

I don't disagree with the point this quiets the DC, and may make an umpire's job somewhat easier. But should those be reasons to change what has been a standard for quite a while? If it is, would not eliminating the LBR also keep the DC quiet? Ohh, sorry, momentary sense of intelligent reasoning.

But the problem, and subsequent arguments, that will now be prevelant will still involve the batter "stepping" into the hit the ball and end up being hit by the ball and the umpire will STILL have to make a judgment similar to whether the batter attempted to avoid a pitch or not.

When did you become an English teacher. If you make fun, I just may become quiet for the rest of the thread

If the new language passes, then the only judgment is if the ball is in the batter's box of over the plate.

And I've never had a DC argue a LBR infraction.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

....And I've never had a DC argue a LBR infraction.

I have; many times; (those would be the uncalled LBR "infractions" ...) Although, the leaving early uncalled "infraction" is much more common!

[Snocatzdad]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The inconsistent application I can buy, but to change a rule for that reason is ridiculous.

I think part of the issue is that too many people have bought into the coach's argument that it was the pitcher's fault because the pitch "froze" the batter. Bull!

While my primary game is presently SP, I've been doing this for a while, and I've never had a problem judging a batter's reaction, or lack of, to a pitched ball and that includes that little ball game.

And if the ball "does not belong in the batter's box", why do we rule on an unintentional batted ball if it hits the bat "in the batter's box"?

IMO, this is a weak.

FYI, the range of HBP ruling is wider than you might think. I had an umpire not award a HBP to a batter struck in the back while in the batter's box even though she moved, her movements were backwards (towards backstop) and rotating which umpire felt wasn't a good enough attempt to avoid being hit.

If a player turns their back to a pitch and in doing so puts their back outside the batters box and into a pitch, that's different. IMO There NEVER should be a ruling about avoiding the pitch when the pitch enters the batters box.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Snocatzdad

FYI, the range of HBP ruling is wider than you might think. I had an umpire not award a HBP to a batter struck in the back while in the batter's box even though she moved, her movements were backwards (towards backstop) and rotating which umpire felt wasn't a good enough attempt to avoid being hit.

If a player turns their back to a pitch and in doing so puts their back outside the batters box and into a pitch, that's different. IMO There NEVER should be a ruling about avoiding the pitch when the pitch enters the batters box.

Personally, I really don't care where the batter is facing. I am not suggesting umpires ignore the HBP, maybe this umpire just blew it. Or maybe the umpire saw something that gave him/her cause to believe the player was trying to get hit. I don't know, I wasn't there.

I'm simply saying that if IMO the batter was trying to get hit, I do not care where the ball was, that batter isn't going to 1B.

With the "ball doesn't belong in the batter's box" logic, than a batter should never be awarded a base if it by a ball out of the BB whether they try to avoid or not, right?

[3SPORT]

If a hitter is struck by a pitch while in the batter’s box, she will be awarded first base regardless if she tried to avoid being struck by the ball. Previously, the umpire had to judge whether the batter in the box tried to avoid being hit by the pitch. The umpire still can keep the batter in the box if, in his/her judgment, the batter initiated the contact by trying to get hit by the pitch.
Anybody think this wasn't a coach's idea?

I believe this was submitted by the SUIP and not coach's. It was not voted in and will not be in the 2010 rule book.

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

I believe this was submitted by the SUIP and not coach's. It was not voted in and will not be in the 2010 rule book.

I believe it was a proposal submitted by the NCAA rules committee (which is comprised of coaches and institutional administrators)...but subsequently not approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversite Panel. So it won't be in the 2010 rule book.

[Snocatzdad]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Personally, I really don't care where the batter is facing. I am not suggesting umpires ignore the HBP, maybe this umpire just blew it. Or maybe the umpire saw something that gave him/her cause to believe the player was trying to get hit. I don't know, I wasn't there.

I'm simply saying that if IMO the batter was trying to get hit, I do not care where the ball was, that batter isn't going to 1B.

With the "ball doesn't belong in the batter's box" logic, than a batter should never be awarded a base if it by a ball out of the BB whether they try to avoid or not, right?

I'd rather see the error made in that direction. Far as I'm concerned that should be a pretty big strike zone if a player is hit anywhere near the plate. I agree this one ump blew it. Girl wasn't set up toes on the line leaning over the plate she got hit in the middle of the batters box. In umpires opinion ( and I think current rule supports this ) whether she was trying to get hit or not is not the threshhold, the rule is whether she tried to avoid getting hit and in his opinions, turning away protecting her face (which is the one place you can get hit now that doesn't hurt thanks to facemasks) wasn't attempting to avoid. Maybe there is some compromise. I'd be happy if they changed the rule to "Player cannot move with the intent to get hit"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Snocatzdad

I'd rather see the error made in that direction. Far as I'm concerned that should be a pretty big strike zone if a player is hit anywhere near the plate. I agree this one ump blew it. Girl wasn't set up toes on the line leaning over the plate she got hit in the middle of the batters box. In umpires opinion ( and I think current rule supports this ) whether she was trying to get hit or not is not the threshhold, the rule is whether she tried to avoid getting hit and in his opinions, turning away protecting her face (which is the one place you can get hit now that doesn't hurt thanks to facemasks) wasn't attempting to avoid. Maybe there is some compromise. I'd be happy if they changed the rule to "Player cannot move with the intent to get hit"

Even then, it is still going to come back to the present detemination, the umpire's judgment. The sad part it is always going to be controversial if the umpire does not award the base.

Remember Ron Hunt?

Hit by Pitch Single Season National League Leaders on Baseball Almanac

He was one of many players who made a career by getting HBP. However, the umpires would not hold him in the box after getting hit even though his antics were almost a running joke around baseball.