ASA Proposed Rule Changes of Note

[mach3]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Stupid. The idea of the tie breaker rule is to generate offense to break the tie. It is SUPPOSED to favor the offense. Jeez... do people think these things through or is it just some coach with a bug up his butt about his last game...

There was the same proposal for the ISF-Rules this year, submitted by the ISF Secretary General. They argued it would place the Visiting Team in an advantage since they could IBB the first batter to get the force play if they need to defend a single run to score.

REASON FOR CHANGE:
Under the current rule, the visiting team if it does not score can walk the first batter to set up a force and to create a double-play situation. The home team cannot do this for the fear that both runners will score and then they will one have one running in the bottom on the inning. Another advantage is the possibility of more than one run scoring, which should require less extra innings.

But it was not accepted.

Raoul

[NCASAUmp]

Mike, was the ball composition change a typo?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Changing the required ball requirments to a .520 cor an a 375.0 lbs of compression.

Was that supposed to be .52 COR / 275 lbs compression?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Changing the required ball requirments to a .520 cor an a 375.0 lbs of compression.

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Mike, was the ball composition change a typo?
Was that supposed to be .52 COR / 275 lbs compression?

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.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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

Yep, it was

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.

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

So what was the true reasoning given for not allowing College Girls play 18G? Who was the big lobby for that change?

So Cal coaches tired of the fact that they no longer dominate 18G.

The other huge driving fact.. the fact that many coaches and parents too simply want 18G to be a showcase division (hence the reason for a big end of year showcase through premier) and not a competitive division.

[Blind Squirrel]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

So Cal coaches tired of the fact that they no longer dominate 18G.

The other huge driving fact.. the fact that many coaches and parents too simply want 18G to be a showcase division (hence the reason for a big end of year showcase through premier) and not a competitive division.

I am a SoCal parent. Never been a softball ump or a coach.

How does the elimination of college players address the issue in your first statement?

John