ASA Rule Changes

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And here I thought you had plenty of oxygen up your way. Guess I was wrong.

I clearly noted the 'EXCEPTION' which would be the next paragraph, COACH!

Oxygen is over rated!

If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, fair or foul, with ordinary effort, the batter is also out.

So, absent ordinary effort on a routine fly ball, we won't call the batter out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

Oxygen is over rated!

Try living without it!

So, absent ordinary effort on a routine fly ball, we won't call the batter out.

Well, that's what it says.

[PtotheB]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Try living without it!

I know a couple of coaches around here that seem to be doing it.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by PtotheB

I know a couple of coaches around here that seem to be doing it.

The braindead need no oxygen.

[NCASAUmp]

How about removing clause 3 from 3-1-A? We're now in 2009, and non-approved bats from 2001 and 2002 are indistinguishable from bats prior to 2000. Many umpires are unable to tell the difference, and consistency is going out the window. Only umpires who have been at it a while are able to tell.

My concern is not the bats from before 2000. It's the bats from 2001-2003 that look like bats from 1999 that are being confused as such.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

How about removing clause 3 from 3-1-A? We're now in 2009, and non-approved bats from 2001 and 2002 are indistinguishable from bats prior to 2000. Many umpires are unable to tell the difference, and consistency is going out the window. Only umpires who have been at it a while are able to tell.

My concern is not the bats from before 2000. It's the bats from 2001-2003 that look like bats from 1999 that are being confused as such.

Yes, but there is a 2000 Certification Stamp which would qualify the bat for play. And, yes, they are still out there, so they should be addressed.

I also have seen a couple old TPS bats that still look good. I don't think we want to dismiss the least dangerous equipment if the idea of checking the equipment is to get rid of the dangerous. Which, BTW, has been raised at the last 2-3 conventions.