ASA Rule Changes
 

Okay, as usual, I will ask for any ideas you may have for prospective rule changes.

No promises, just looking for input.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Already have this one on paper.

Thanks

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


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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

That was before all of this bat craziness.

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
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.

I'd toss the bat anyway. I'd snag 'em with the following section of 3-1-J

Was the bat like this when it was made? No? Get rid of it, coach. I know it's a stretch, but that's what I'd do.

You mean you don't cheat and go at an angle? :D

Wouldn't 43 at 16U help keep more of the 16U players "home" (instead of playing up) and thereby strengthen the division? If the division is weak now, what happens once high schools go to 43?

How about a navy blue with ASA logo dew rag? :D

Haven't been to officialgear.com lately, have you?

http://sabian.whispers.org/asa_doo_rag.jpg

My crappy photoshop skills are improving...

Any other equipment requests? :D

Numbers on the sleeves

:eek:

*ducks*

Dibs on 42. :D

I recently worked a coupkle of ASA events and wore a non-black mask - the only person I hears anything from about it being non-approved was from a "spectator".:D

If you had a UIC worth anything at one of those events, he should have said something.

And that spectator was whom?

http://fc03.deviantart.com/images/i/...g_emoticon.gif

The same one who mentioned the plain blue ball bags, probably.

Boy, some people's kids, I tell ya!

Ya know, I think it was.

He provided food & drink - dunno that it mattered what was said.:D

Well, then some may say that UIC is worth his weight in gold.

1. If INT occurs before the BR reaches 1B, all runners not out return TOP unless forced.

2. Runner who has crossed the plate at the time of intentional INT to break up a double play on a fly ball should be considered the runner closest to home.

I did that at Nats this year. Guess what? The bat WAS made that way!

There is a Cat Osterman (I believe) bat that has a flex handle and ASA approval! The first one I tossed because of the "wiggle." Told the coach it was leaving, and while the UIC was on his way to tag it, the coach removed the factory grip stating "it's always been like that." Sure enough, the handle was made to flex. I suppose to help stop any sting. Saw one other later on.

Sheesh... What's next?

This was made with a flex handle, too...
http://eagleswords.com/library/MaceBall.jpg

Maybe it would be more simple to base the runner closest to home on where they were at TOP? Of course, that wouldn't help on the sitch you have in mind.

This got me curious. I found the following description on one website that sells this bat:

Once again, DeMarini leads the industry, this time with the first bat to combine a Fiber Reinforced Carbon fiber handle with a DX-1 alloy aluminum barrel. This bat was specifically designed for better control and feel. DeMarini's battle-proven Single Wall Technology is combined with a new carbon fiber handle and taper that makes this bottle bat design on of the best on the market today. With fiber in the handle and the action in the barrel, the Cat Osterman DXCAT swings like a natural extension of the human body. The new Positac 2 grip gives the player the most comfort at the plate. For the player, Half & Half means more power at the plate. The Demarini DXCAT Cat is ASA, USSSA, NSA, ISA, and ISF approved. This bat offers an long barrel length with a -13 length to weight ratio. Behold the worlds first bionic bat.

Another website describes it:

This is the DeMarini DXCTF Cat Osterman signature model fastpitch softball model. This bat offers the DeMarini singlewall, bottle bat design with a precision balance for competitive play. The 7046 aluminum alloy makes up the strong and durable outer barrel. The improved n2m end cap helps damper the vibration to make for a better feel and easier swing. The new Variegated Comfort grip gives you the most comfortable feel allowing you to have to most control possible over the bat. With the new rotation index labeling you will be able to rotate your swings to evenly break-in the bat. The new superior graphics provide for optimal look while at the plate. The Cat is stamped “Official Softball,” along with the ASA, USSSA, ISF 1.20, and NSA official markings. This bat also includes a full twelve month manufacturers warranty. The DXCTF Cat Osterman is the standard in bottle bat design. DeMarini: Insane Dedication To Performance.

Does anyone find this a bit odd... I wonder when was the last time CO actually swung a bat in competitive softball?

No kidding. That's like marketing a Nolan Ryan catcher's mitt.

I second Dave on invoking the crash rule whether or not the fielder has the ball, even if it is a losing proposition.

Slow Pitch
 

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!

Call with me sometime. This won't be an issue. ;)

Hey, we might get to call together in Salem!

That's what I'm hearing! Lookin' forward to it. :)

Why?
 

Do you guys not enforce the batter's box rule? I'm confused.

I always enforce the batter's box issue, and I don't put up with BS from the players who won't step in and keep their feet from going over the lines before the pitch.

You're in the box, or I call strike.

Maybe it would be more simple to base the runner closest to home on where they were at TOP?

For intentional INT on fly balls, that would work. In fact, it would make a good general rule (for INT on fly balls). No runner should be able to advance or score simply because he reached the next base or touched the plate before another runner committed INT on a fly ball. (INT before the BR reaches 1B would probably cover most of this, but there still might be a loophole.)

I would also change the ruling on this play:

Bases loaded, 1 out. Slow runner B4 grounds to F6, who throws to F4 for the out on R3 as speedy R1 scores. F4's throw to 1B is in plenty of time to get B4 and end the inning, but R3 (who is already out) deliberately interferes with the throw. The ruling is that R2 (the runner closest to home) is the third out, and since R3 had been put out, the out on R2 is not a force, and thus R1's run counts.

On such intentional INT, I would give the defense the advantageous third out they were trying to get at 1B.

There are a half dozen ASA rules I'm not particularly fond of, but they don't have the potential for disaster, like letting a team benefit from committing deliberate INT.

A couple years ago the box was widened and then returned using the same excuse.

AFAIC, the excuse is nothing more than just that, an excuse, and a weak one at that, for playing t-ball.

It is slow pitch softball. Anyone who cannot avoid hitting a ball someplace should consider taking up golf, or maybe competitive rock, paper, scissors.

"To avoid forcing the batter to hit up the middle" has also been used as an excuse against home run limits and pitch height limits. The players will use anything as an excuse to be able to keep hitting cheap HRs.

The players are already whining about the .52/275 ball which has been introduced in some areas. The ball sucks, it knuckles, it turns to mush, etc. all which is a load of crap. The ball still exits the bats at 98 MPH, but impact is only a third of that which would fracture a human scull. The present ball being used in ASA SP has an impact at 50% higher than the force needed to cause that fracture. The key is the HR hitters will still be able to hit HRs with the presently legal ASA bats while the pretenders have to start learning how to deal with simple basehits. And, of course, has already surfaced as just another excuse that will inevitably lead to "forcing" the batters to hit up the middle. :( Go figure.

The good news is that the introduction of this ball may reduce, if not eliminate, the non-approved bat list. But we all know how slow ASA is with this type of change.

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?

With 1 out, R1 is on 3rd and R2 is on 1st. B4 hits a high fly ball over fair territory, which F4 is under, ready to catch. R1 ran on contact, not realizing it was a fly ball, and crosses home plate while the ball is in flight. R2 realizes that F4 will turn an easy double play if the ball is caught, and interferes with the catch, so that F4 is unable to catch the ball.

Since the inteference rule returns runners to bases at the time of interference, R1 would score on this play, having crossed the plate prior to the act of interference. The ball was not caught, so there is no available appeal.

However, the BR is also declared out for the act of interference, and no run can score when the BR doesn't reach first base, no?

Two responses.

One, the BR didn't commit any act of interference; R2 did. R2 is out, and BR is awarded first base, UNLESS the umpire judges an intentional act of interference. So, not an automatic ruling; and many players could make the interference look unintentional, or at least put intent in doubt.

Two, to prove the original question, even if you add the judgment of intentional interference, simply change the play to no outs. R1 scores when there is interference on a fly ball.

Steve, INT on a fly ball, fair OR foul results in the runner AND the BR being declared out.

Yes, this would be the stickler. Granted that would have to be one speedster on third or the ball was it a mile high.

Whether or not a run scores before an act of interference is not an issue, IMO. The issue is did the offense benefit from the INT (e.g. a run scores that otherwise would not have - see the other thread on a runner using an act of INT to prevent being forced out).

Provide rules support for this statement. I don't believe it is true 100% of the time.


It's only 60 feet. Quick runners can cover that distance in 3.8 to 4.1 seconds. I'm short, fat, and slow and I think I can do it in under 5.0 seconds. :eek: :D :p

ASA: 8-7-j.

This sitch was specifically covered in this year's and last year's NUS. If the BR interferes with the defense's ability to catch a fly ball (in fair or foul territory), the ball is immediately dead, and only the BR is out. All runners must return.

What if it isn't an attempt to prevent a double play?

I don't think Big Slick was referring to the BR interferring, I think he was talking about a runner interferring on a fly ball.

Yes, I am referring to INT by a runner on a fly ball. I don't have my rule book at work, had to make a phone call for the rule reference. I believe there is a note that states: "On a fly ball, fair or foul, the batter runner shall also be called out." The latter part of the rule was added circa 2001. Only rule code to carry the foul ball provision.

Y'all need to "turn the page" and read the EXCEPTION to 8.7.J-L.NOTE.

Actually, I believe we discussed this play quite a while back AND it was also discussed by the NUS.

Ya mean dis one?

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! :p

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

Try living without it!:rolleyes:

Well, that's what it says.:D

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

The braindead need no oxygen. :p

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.