Yes, that is a typo; the ball would be .520 and compression of 275 pounds or less.

Also, Mike's paraphrase of the rule proposal isn't correct. The rule change as proposed right now is to add that ball as an approved ball, in addition to those already approved at certain levels. This year's proposal doesn't YET change any levels to that ball, it simply makes it an approved ASA ball, and sets up the groundwork for the manufacturers to (consider to) begin mass production.

For those that always need to know the CV of those making the statements, I am actually at the National Council meeting (as is Mike), and serve on the Playing Rules Committee.

Steve, I've never doubted (and will never remotely consider doubting) your credentials. :)

Thanks for the clarification!

Yep, it was:eek:

Yes, but there is more to it. These are just a change in the parameters of allowable balls, not necessarily a requirement that this ball MUST be used. There is no proposed change prescribing this ball for any particular division of play.

However, if this change occurs, many expect some type of change in the bat certification requirements. That may be a problem without locking in this or a ball with a lower compression. Otherwise, we may end up with a non-approved bat list that may or may not be in effect depending upon what ball is being used.

:confused: Since when? Or are you just being scarcastic? :confused:

Since ever?

ASA 5.11, the Tie Breaker Rule is used only by Women's & JO Girls FP, Men's 40+ and 45+ FP and Men's Senior SP

Sorry, wasn't familiar with the tiebreker's limits in FP. I'm a SP guy.

We actually have a local league that uses the ITB for all of their league play. Gets games over faster.

I have no problem with this rule. Eventually, everyone will be pitching from this distance.

Seems totally contradictory to all the safety mumbo jumbo we have been hearing about for years.


Totally ridiculous, yet not wholly unexpected. I really wish that ASA would learn what is mommy and daddy territory, and what is the domain of the "Governing Body of Softball." These "feel good" rules are totally unnecessary, but I feel are probably brought on my parental pressure and manufacturing interests.

Then hire an official, whose sole duty it is to peruse the various corners, back alleys and what not around a complex to insure that this rule is being applied properly. Otherwise, leave it alone.

The one thing that I really don't like is being the jewelry police. If they want this rule in, then make sure to put the onus for its enforcement on the coach by making the penalty the coaches' immediate removal from the game. Otherwise, leave as it is already written.

No problem. Better traction = safer playing conditions. I really don't think that you will see a lot of JO players or coaches honing their spikes to pull a "Ty Cobb."

Heck, let's just let em all play. Sure would make line-up management easier! :rolleyes:

I really want to meet the "mental giant" who conceived of this rule change. :rolleyes:

Does this include the pitcher and the catcher? If so, we are basically looking at the pitcher doing their warm-ups and then a F4 and F6 standing around until a throw down??? Makes no sense. This safety conciousness is getting out of hand. One must allow for some liability/responsibility on the part of the players and coaches, or in the case of JO, players, coaches and parents.

Ain't that the truth?!

Why not just do away with the whole IP thing altogether? Or simplify it. While I agree that the penalty is severe as written, I don't think that this will cause any more IP's to be called. I think the women/girls (in FP) should have the exact same rules and or accepted conventions that the men have. One foot or two feet in contact with the pitching plate, their choice, and a leap with the toe down allowable. A replant being illegal. Also, there is way too much concern about the touching of hands...etc. I feel like it shouldn't matter whether or not a pitcher takes the PP with hands together or not, as long as there is a pause to take a sign (or to simulate same) before the hands separate and the pitch starts.

Yeah, they are acking for it all right! :cool:


You sure about that????? :D

Withdrawn



This passed in Equipment Certification!

Quote:

Changing the required ball requirments to a .520 cor an a 275.0 lbs of compression.

Equipment Certification shot this one down.

So wait, are you saying that flare/cone grips will be legal in 2010? Knobcuffs, Grip 'n' Rip, etc., will be okay? Done deal?

Nothing is a "done deal" until Thursday.

But the way the change reads:

Safety Grip: Covers the handle region of the bat. The safety grip shall not be less than 10 inches and not more than 15 inches. There shall be no exposed metal in the 10-15 inch area. The safety grip may be a molded finger formed grip as long as it is permanently attached to the bat, or attached with Safety tape. Resin, pine tar or spray substances are permissible on the safety grip only. Any tape applied to the safety grip must be continuous spiral. A bat having a flare or cone shaped grip attached is legal.

The following are the rule changes that will be presented to the General Council tomorrow as approved:

Change 16U & 18U FP to 43' pitching distance

Change base distance for Men's Adult SP (excluding Seniors) to 70'

Permit the Safety Base to be any color contrasting with white

Clarified a legal bat which includes a flare/cone at the knob end of the handle

Allow JO 16U & 18U FP to wear metal spikes

Eliminated "heating" from the Note restricting the changing of the characteristics of equipment

Change the rule to return all runners to their previous base ANYTIME the BR is determined to be an Unreported Substitute prior to the next pitch.

Change 4.7.C.5 from banning "communication equipment" to "electronic equipment" from the dugout. This includes video cameras.

Include "Modified" in the rule allowing the pitcher to use a drying agent

Allowed Modified to use a courtesy runner for the pitcher and catcher similar to that of the FP game.

The following are some of the proposed changes rejected, but may be resurrected on during General Council:

Changing the pitching distance to 53' for all adult SP except Seniors

Changing the base distance to 70' for all adult SP except Seniors and Masters

Changing the pitch height in SP to 6-10 feet

Allowing a courtesy foul in SP when the batter starts with a 1-1 count

Without any disagreement with Mike, here is what I posted on my local messageboard:

Sounds pretty good. Interesting is all the hubbub at the 18Gs about the grip attachements only to (probably) have it changed this year.

Good to see the cleat changes.

I think the pitching distance change is what parents/coaches think they want not realizing how badly most of their pitchers struggle even at 40'. I think they think their pitchers are better than they are. This change will help the top pitchers and hurt the vast majority of mediocre pitchers.. but if its what they want, oh well.

I experienced it several times last weekend with teams playing up to 18's expecting me to adjust my zone so their mediocre pitchers could get a strike.

Banning electrical equipment sounds like an unnecessary PITA.

I guess no news on whether the 18gs will be moving around?

Actually, 3 different proposals, I believe 2 of 3 may have passed.

One has it always being voted on and awarded like every other tournament. Second has it on OKC every 3rd year, with the Executive Director placing it in the off years.

The one I believe failed had it in OKC every 5th year, with the other 4 voted on and awarded.

Pretty sure one of the two will be the final outcome; surprising to me, #2 seems the favorite. Will be fought, as some want the membership to make all such decisions, and not give up any opportunities.