Is ASA going it alone with this ball (that is, what is U-trip, for example, doing)? If ASA is going it alone, will this result in a further defection of teams and then ASA backtracking?

No, but it shouldn't be an issue except with the ignorant. But, then again, we are talking about softball players.:rolleyes: The ball DOES last and can be hit for distance by those who can hit for distance. Now, I'm sure there are different levels of quality which is the same with every other sports product on the market.

All that has been done is what the players demanded. That was for ASA to stop screwing with the bats and do something with the balls. Well, here it is and a replacement is necessary as apparently, the microcells are being banished for ASA ball as it seems they are too heavy and do not meet the specs. And that is a shame as these balls held up in hottest and most humid conditions.

How about allowing an advantageous 4th out on any runner if it negates a run?

How about allowing an advantageous 4th out on any runner if it negates a run?

I'll second that one now that someone has mentioned it.

Tried that a couple years ago. NUS would not support it. I believe part of the concern was it would require all play to continue, including umpires ruling outs without appeal, after the 3rd out had been executed.

Happens in coed wreck, regardless of appeals. :rolleyes:

Then how about at least allowing 4th out appeals on any runner if it negates a score?

Same reasoning. Hey, I tried and it went nowhere.

I'll fight the battles I believe I can win, maybe even a few that are marginal, but beating a dead horse that I know will not be endorsed is just a waste of time and can draw a negative reaction to those items that are more important.

Well, I agree with that. But isn't ASA the only organization in bat-ball-diamond sports that only allows a 4th out appeal on a runner who has scored? I guess all these other umpires in all these other organizations must have somehow figured out how to deal with it...

Thanks for trying.

You need to remember that the rule, at one time, was exactly as you have suggested. However, it was changed "in house" and I can only assume some TWP occurred somewhere to prompt the change.

1. That is the result of this play 99.999% of the time anyway. In that .001% where a runner has reached the next base before the interference, then the interference obviously had no effect on that runner's advance. Why penalize a runner that otherwise legally aquired a base?

2. Kind of the same answer...if the runner had already crossed the plate before the interference, then the interference had no bearing on the run scoring.

These two would give the offense a "double whammy", when "one whammy" should be enough!

These two would give the offense a "double whammy", when "one whammy" should be enough!

NCAA softball uses the first rule. It can prevent some problems. (This is why all baseball codes use that rule.)

Note that in the second case I mentioned fly ball. A runner who crosses the plate before INT on a fly ball should not be allowed to score.

Please provide a situation where a runner can score on INT on a fly ball.

Bases loaded, 0 or 1 out. Batter hits a high popup to F3. Runner from 3B breaks on contact. Once this runner passes HP, BR slaps at the ball before F3 catches it, and the ball falls to the ground. Run scores. BR out on IF, runner who started on 2B is declared out [now closest to home].

General ideas, simplifying wording, less redundancy, fewer rule vs. RS contradictions, more consistent penalties for various INT.

Allow coach's option on all IP batted ball, regardless of runner advances.

Mostly, anything that will bring back FP to ASA in Mid-Atlantic.

Is one foot on PP too political?