brief version of ASA rules

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

while i understand your point of view, i dont think its that bad of an idea.

99.9% of players arent going to read the rule book. players might read a "cliffs notes" version that covers common scenarios. players who know the "cliffs noted" version would be better, IMO, than players who dont know any rule versions. i know a pretty standard response i use often, to arguments posed by players, is "thats not a rule" or "thats not a rule in ASA softball"

obviously the rules would be prefaced with a statement like these are a concise version of the rules, not all scenarios for each rule, or exceptions for each rule are covered....

Absolutely not. I think you have too much faith in the players and coaches. Giving them an abridged version of the rule book won't do anyone any kind of service, and here's why.

1 - Coaches and players love to pick and choose rules and take them out of context. At a National, I had couple of players b1tching at me because a couple of batters hit chip shots to the outfield without "breaking their wrists." I later found out that they were using Rules Supplement #10, which has to do with check swings!

2 - There are certain sections of the rule book that are pretty long because they have to be. Do you really want to try and abridge obstruction? Or interference? How about unreported subs? I don't think so.

3 - If you give players and coaches such a book, they're going to use it as THE authoritative guide on the rules of softball. They will ignore the fact that it's the abridged version. They will swear up and down "this is the rule! I read it! I read the rules!" No, you read the abridged rules, and had you bothered to read the ACTUAL rules, maybe you would understand that.

You're giving coaches and players WAY too much credit. Trust me, while your intentions may be good, I think abridging it would only serve to confuse things even more.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Absolutely not. I think you have too much faith in the players and coaches. Giving them an abridged version of the rule book won't do anyone any kind of service, and here's why.

1 - Coaches and players love to pick and choose rules and take them out of context. At a National, I had couple of players b1tching at me because a couple of batters hit chip shots to the outfield without "breaking their wrists." I later found out that they were using Rules Supplement #10, which has to do with check swings!

2 - There are certain sections of the rule book that are pretty long because they have to be. Do you really want to try and abridge obstruction? Or interference? How about unreported subs? I don't think so.

3 - If you give players and coaches such a book, they're going to use it as THE authoritative guide on the rules of softball. They will ignore the fact that it's the abridged version. They will swear up and down "this is the rule! I read it! I read the rules!" No, you read the abridged rules, and had you bothered to read the ACTUAL rules, maybe you would understand that.

You're giving coaches and players WAY too much credit. Trust me, while your intentions may be good, I think abridging it would only serve to confuse things even more.

dont let anyone else hear you say that, very few posters on here show me any respect, you dont want to lower your street cred.

i was more talking about the casual SP rec league player, most of whom never even sniffed a varsity baseball jock (ie "high" level of baseball) thus dont know many rules.

if/when you ump a rec league SP game, how many times do you see a 1B or C stand in the baseline w/o possession of the ball???? i see it ALL THE TIME, theres no harm, IMO, in writing something like "obstruction is any act in which a fielder interferes with a runner, being in the baseline without possession of the ball is a form of obstruction. contact is not necessary for obstruction."

no point in beating a dead horse. obviously no one knows of any concise rule book versions. but at least you, NCASAUMP, handle yourself with class and can maintain a discussion without turning petty.

EDIT: this cliffs notes version would not be geared to players who know what RS 10 is, or who would have any idea on how to argue a check swing. more to inform players of, generally speaking, what is and is not allowed. This makes sense to me in my head, im not sure if im not writing it well enough that everyone else doesnt understand what im trying to say.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

if/when you ump a rec league SP game, how many times do you see a 1B or C stand in the baseline w/o possession of the ball???? i see it ALL THE TIME, theres no harm, IMO, in writing something like "obstruction is any act in which a fielder interferes with a runner, being in the baseline without possession of the ball is a form of obstruction. contact is not necessary for obstruction."

And even if they understand what obstruction is, it won't stop it from happening. I see it hundreds and hundreds of times a year, from the top levels on down to the bottom. Simply knowing a rule means nothing.

Originally Posted by steveshane67

EDIT: this cliffs notes version would not be geared to players who know what RS 10 is, or who would have any idea on how to argue a check swing. more to inform players of, generally speaking, what is and is not allowed. This makes sense to me in my head, im not sure if im not writing it well enough that everyone else doesnt understand what im trying to say.

My point was that players already play enough "pick and choose" when it comes to the rules, and this will not help them to gain any sort of clarity. If it's a truly rec league, why should they concern themselves with the rules so much? There's a time and place for a friendly neighborhood game without umpires making every call, and that's just fine with me. However, I can only imagine how ugly it would get if something like this were ever created.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

And even if they understand what obstruction is, it won't stop it from happening. I see it hundreds and hundreds of times a year, from the top levels on down to the bottom. Simply knowing a rule means nothing.

a 1b that knows that standing on the base when the ball is hit to the OF is obstruction is less likely to commit OBS than a 1b who doesnt know that standing on the base when the ball is hit to the OF is obstruction. how less likely may be up for debate.

while it stop obs from happening? probably not, will it stop some of the complaining, by the offending fielder, when it does? i cant see how it wouldnt be possible.

i know a common argument i get is "i was waiting on the throw" or "i wasnt in the baseline"

heres a classic baseball example. pitchers who know what the balk rule is are far less likely to balk than a pitcher who does not know what the balk rule is. if a pitcher thinks they can stride to home then throw to first, they probably will try to do that to pick a runner off. pitchers who know they arent allowed to do that, arent going to do that intentionally bc they dont want to give the base runner(s) 1 base.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

heres a classic baseball example. pitchers who know what the balk rule is are far less likely to balk than a pitcher who does not know what the balk rule is. if a pitcher thinks they can stride to home then throw to first, they probably will try to do that to pick a runner off. pitchers who know they arent allowed to do that, arent going to do that intentionally bc they dont want to give the base runner(s) 1 base.

This answer applies to any rule infraction, not just the quoted example.

I really like the answer about "coaching". Beyond the coach's responsibility to teach his players, I think that playing any sport will offer the players many learning moments.

The baseball pitcher that steps toward home then throws to first, or the F3 that stands in the basepath without the ball, or the batter who doesn't run because his batted ball touched the plate is about learn something! If you make this mistake one time and it costs your team, are you going to keep doing the same thing over and over again?

If you "whine" about it enough, you're going to learn another lesson and that one is going to be a bit more painful! I guess that Rule Number One of the Reader's Digest version of the rule book would need to be, "The umpire's ruling is final and if you argue to the point of being a jackhole you can be removed from the game".

Now that would be an easy rule for the coaches to teach their players before ever stepping out onto the field!

[IRISHMAFIA]

And again, the beat goes on...and on...and on...and on . . . . . . . . . . . .

Didn't Shane die at the end of the movie.......are the credits rolling yet?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Didn't Shane die at the end of the movie?

One of my favorite novels/movies. Compliments of Wikipedia:

Shane – the traveller and ex gunfighter, a mysterious gunman who enters into the life of Joe Starrett and his family and carves a place for himself in their hearts. Although he tries to leave his gunslinging past behind, refusing to even carry a gun, he decides to fight Fletcher and Wilson, the town enemies, in order to save Joe Starrett's farm. After he kills Fletcher and Wilson, he feels he must leave the town forever. (There is an unstated implication that he may be dying, as he departs.)

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

My point was that players already play enough "pick and choose" when it comes to the rules, and this will not help them to gain any sort of clarity. If it's a truly rec league, why should they concern themselves with the rules so much? There's a time and place for a friendly neighborhood game without umpires making every call, and that's just fine with me. However, I can only imagine how ugly it would get if something like this were ever created.

to stop players from arguing when they are 100% misinformed/wrong. if a player knows that on a foul ball, that there is no longer an above the head requirement for an out, they are far less likely to argue when a foul ball does not go higher than the batters head and is caught.

if a player knows that a batted ball that hits home plate does not mean a foul ball, they are more likely to run to first, and potentially get on base, than to stand in the batters box with their thumb up their *ss bc they think its a foul ball, and then whine, "but it hit the plate!"

think of it this way, if you moved to india and joined a cricket league, assuming you know 0 about the rules of cricket, are you more likely to read a 200 page convoluted rule book, or a 5 page brief overview of the common rules?

i dont understand your pt that players would "pick and choose" the rules.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Dave,

What you are suggesting is called "coaching".

It is not the purpose of the rules or officials to teach players how to play the game.

That is why the coach gets a rule book upon registration. The PROBLEM is that this usually goes one of two places, in the bottom of their equipment bag or under the short leg of the dining room table.

It is my experience that most coaches/players never even look at the book until they are trying to find something that they can hang their balls on if prove they were shortchanged on a play. Even then, they have no knowledge of the entire rule, just what will satisfy their argument.

Of course, when you try to explain the entire rule, proper application and interpretation all they will do is point at the one sentence they found in the rule book and believe it is the word of god when it comes to HIS/HER game.

I have no problem with players learning the rules, but they have to be open to the entire book, not just what they believe supports their point of view.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Dave,

What you are suggesting is called "coaching".

It is not the purpose of the rules or officials to teach players how to play the game.

That is why the coach gets a rule book upon registration. The PROBLEM is that this usually goes one of two places, in the bottom of their equipment bag or under the short leg of the dining room table.

It is my experience that most coaches/players never even look at the book until they are trying to find something that they can hang their balls on if prove they were shortchanged on a play. Even then, they have no knowledge of the entire rule, just what will satisfy their argument.

Of course, when you try to explain the entire rule, proper application and interpretation all they will do is point at the one sentence they found in the rule book and believe it is the word of god when it comes to HIS/HER game.

I have no problem with players learning the rules, but they have to be open to the entire book, not just what they believe supports their point of view.

I agree. One of the better men's teams that I see very seldom has a player argue seriously about a call or ruling. They have a manager who does all of their discussing - and I have yet to see him get anywhere near being tossed over inappropriate actions when talking with an umpire. This guy is an exception in that he does know the rules and many of the interpretations.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

...dont let anyone else hear you say that, very few posters on here show me any respect.

You want respect??? Then show respect. I gave you a legitimate answer, that has been echoed by nearly everyone on here, and you call me a "jacksa$$." Prior to that, I was showing you respect. (You may not have liked what you heard, but I never disrespected you.) However, don't look for me to show you respect anymore.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

You want respect??? Then show respect. I gave you a legitimate answer, that has been echoed by nearly everyone on here, and you call me a "jacksa$$." Prior to that, I was showing you respect. (You may not have liked what you heard, but I never disrespected you.) However, don't look for me to show you respect anymore.

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Is the PDF part of ASA's website? If not, then how can you believe the veracity of it? In a nutshell, you can't. That is why we all use the rule book. There is no short cut to understanding the game. Quit trying to find one.

Maybe you werent trying to be a jack*ss but it sure comes off as that. why can a pdf that isnt found on the ASA website be the real rules???? why can you believe the veracity if a book, that obviously cant be read online, but not a digital version of it???? its when you use complete idiotic logic when trying to sound like you are omniscient that makes you sound like a jack*ss.

and if you werent trying to sound like a jack*ss, why even bother writing "quit trying to find one"???? no one said lets use a brief version of the rules to replace the official rulebook. all i was looking for was an easier way for PLAYERS to understand MORE, NOT ALL, about the rules.

[argodad]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

Maybe you werent trying to be a jack*ss but it sure comes off as that. why can a pdf that isnt found on the ASA website be the real rules???? why can you believe the veracity if a book, that obviously cant be read online, but not a digital version of it???? its when you use complete idiotic logic when trying to sound like you are omniscient that makes you sound like a jack*ss.

and if you werent trying to sound like a jack*ss, why even bother writing "quit trying to find one"???? no one said lets use a brief version of the rules to replace the official rulebook. all i was looking for was an easier way for PLAYERS to understand MORE, NOT ALL, about the rules.

Steve are you an A**hole in real life, or do you just play one on this website?

[Umpteenth]

Originally Posted by argodad

Steve are you an A**hole in real life, or do you just play one on this website?

Maybe he spends lots of nights in Holiday Inn Express!!

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Umpteenth

Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

I wish you had told me this sooner!!!!