ASA Rule Changes

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

43ft for 14-U and up.

I was leaning more toward 16U as many of those true teams are playing 18 and I believe the aggressive 14s are playing 16U.

We'll see what happens.

[youngump]

Modify the unreported substitute rule so that it matches the rules supplement. (A batter not reaching base can still have the advances he caused nullified). This appears to be the intent but is directly contrary to the language as written.
________
Head Shop

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

Modify the unreported substitute rule so that it matches the rules supplement. (A batter not reaching base can still have the advances he caused nullified). This appears to be the intent but is directly contrary to the language as written.

Already have this one on paper.

Thanks

[NCASAUmp]

1 - Unlimited arc for higher classifications of SP play.

Why? Hit the f'ing ball!


2 - Immediate dead ball and an out on any runner who intentionally and maliciously makes contact with a defensive player, regardless of whether or not the fielder has the ball.

Why? They're not playing softball anymore, and the play needs to be killed so teams can prevent and/or mop up the mess.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

2 - Immediate dead ball and an out on any runner who intentionally and maliciously makes contact with a defensive player.

Why? They're not playing softball anymore, and the play needs to be killed so teams can prevent and/or mop up the mess.

Isn't this the rule now?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

Isn't this the rule now?

Sort of... I added a clarification.

I meant for it to be regardless whether or not the defensive player has the ball. Currently, the fielder must have the ball for it to be a dead ball, INT call. I'd like it to be dead ball, runner's out, coaches need to get a hold of things NOW.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Sort of... I added a clarification.

I meant for it to be regardless whether or not the defensive player has the ball. Currently, the fielder must have the ball for it to be a dead ball, INT call. I'd like it to be dead ball, runner's out, coaches need to get a hold of things NOW.

I was about to change my post, lol. I realized you meant into a fielder without the ball. Gotcha.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

1 - Unlimited arc for higher classifications of SP play.

Why? Hit the f'ing ball!

This is not a sellable issue. Too many players already complaining about the 12' and too many pitchers cannot throw a strike now! ASA SP is having a hard enough time as it is with the competition which uses a lower restriction.

2 - Immediate dead ball and an out on any runner who intentionally and maliciously makes contact with a defensive player, regardless of whether or not the fielder has the ball.

Why? They're not playing softball anymore, and the play needs to be killed so teams can prevent and/or mop up the mess.

I've had this one shot down (twice I think) in the past five years. HP couldn't sell this one.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This is not a sellable issue. Too many players already complaining about the 12' and too many pitchers cannot throw a strike now! ASA SP is having a hard enough time as it is with the competition which uses a lower restriction.

That's my point, though. One of the biggest criticisms of ASA by the players is that they don't innovate. ASA is considered the "old school" of doing things. I'm not talking doing that crazy sh1t like U-Trip (GOD no!). I'm talking about removing the height limit in a game that's completely favoring the batter. Yeah, they whine about the 12' limit... because there IS a limit. Remove the limit, and that's one less thing for them to b1tch about.

There are plenty of pitchers around the US who play in unlimited arc leagues, can toss 'em 30 feet in the air and will drop it on a dime behind HP. Put your money where your mouth is, boys. You want to hit the ball? Swing away.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I've had this one shot down (twice I think) in the past five years. HP couldn't sell this one.

A shame. I'd like to see this one get through someday. As I've always said, I have a problem with letting any runner score after they've just plowed over a catcher without the ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

That's my point, though. One of the biggest criticisms of ASA by the players is that they don't innovate. ASA is considered the "old school" of doing things. I'm not talking doing that crazy sh1t like U-Trip (GOD no!). I'm talking about removing the height limit in a game that's completely favoring the batter. Yeah, they whine about the 12' limit... because there IS a limit. Remove the limit, and that's one less thing for them to b1tch about.

Actualy, ASA was at one time unlimited. BTW, the SP game is SUPPOSED to favor the batter. The pitcher's job is to throw strikes and cover the middle. It's when the pitcher thinks that they win or lose a game is when it gets screwed up.

There are plenty of pitchers around the US who play in unlimited arc leagues, can toss 'em 30 feet in the air and will drop it on a dime behind HP. Put your money where your mouth is, boys. You want to hit the ball? Swing away.

Not in this area! But if you do that, you better bring the mat into play since many of these pitches will NOT pass through the strike zone.

A shame. I'd like to see this one get through someday. As I've always said, I have a problem with letting any runner score after they've just plowed over a catcher without the ball.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it may take a drastic event to get this through.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Actualy, ASA was at one time unlimited. BTW, the SP game is SUPPOSED to favor the batter. The pitcher's job is to throw strikes and cover the middle. It's when the pitcher thinks that they win or lose a game is when it gets screwed up.

That was before all of this bat craziness.

[wadeintothem]

16U is a weak division and that is well known. Often the 14's preparing for nats play 16U most of the season when preparing... as such, I dont think the 43' for 16U will go anywhere.

I like NCAA's proposed rule change

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.

I'm sure it will once again be in the proposed changes a few times, but I like metal cleats for 18's and up.

I would like the strike zone wording changed to more of the NCAA wording to be more in line with what is actually taught/called. Arm Pits to Top of knees is not what is called, taught, expected, or wanted.

All available subs must be listed on the line up card. If someone shows up, they can be added to the list of available subs. Intentionally withholding an available sub can result in an ejection of the manager and disqualification of the sub.

Add "visible flexibility" to the list of bat disqualifiers (or some other wording which would indicate you can see/feel the bat wiggling.)

On the umpire side-
I would like to see alloy colored masks added to the color allowed by masks. We are missing out on a great looking quality umpiring mask.

I would like to see scissors and box added to acceptable stances.

Hats worn under the HSM (or even carried in a pocket) are mashed and look terrible. It should not be required.

With a runner on 1B, the PU should trail more towards the circle and not up the line. To many PU's are out of position for the call at 3B because they are held by trail.

I probably could think up more but thats just off the top of my head.

[DeputyUICHousto]

Make the batter's box more narrow...this way, a pitcher knows he can hit the inside corner with the knowlege the ball won't be coming back at him at 100mph...oops, 98 mph. Make the batter's get up on the plate...and enforce the rule!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I was leaning more toward 16U as many of those true teams are playing 18 and I believe the aggressive 14s are playing 16U.

We'll see what happens.

I'm with you on this... 43' for 16U and up.

And, speaking of NFHS leading the way, after a couple of HS seasons, I'd suggest that metal cleats be legal for 16U and up, too.

If you're up for it, try again to get a "can't avoid" exception added to the BR INT with a D3K rule.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If you're up for it, try again to get a "can't avoid" exception added to the BR INT with a D3K rule.

I'll dig this out and see if there is any reasonable possibility of getting through.