Proposed 2011 ASA Rule Changes Part I

[NDblue]

I have no problem with awarding a base for an IP in SP as I have no issue with calling an IP no matter the level of league or tournaments. Right now, there's really no deterrent except a ball for the batter. Let's make these SP pitchers put it there for the hitters to hit.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by belle

authentic jerseys of NBA NHL NFL MLB NCAA .www.base-price.com

Way to stay on track!!!

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

WTF are you talking about?

Guess we are going to have to walk through this a step at a time.

Are you aware that this is NOT a change to the existing rule?

It's a change to part of a very ambiguous rule that we all know how to get right anyway.

Reading from a 2008 rulebook since that's what I have available at the moment.
Rule 1, definitions, Fair Ball
A legally batted ball that:
E. Touches first, second or third base.

8.2.M Double base ...
1. A batted ball hitting or bounding over the white portion is fair.
2. A batted ball hitting or bounding over the colored portion is foul.

Now, we all know that A is meant to trump B. A ball bounding over both is fair and one hitting both is fair. That's the rule, even though it isn't written down anywhere. If you didn't know how to call this and had to figure it out from the book, you'd be hopelessly lost.

Now the new definition which does not fix 8.2.M will read:
Rule 1.Fair.E Touches first (white portion only), second or third base.

which is meant to make the two consistent. Perhaps it isn't meant to solve the obvious problem there. I had assumed it was. But it could incredibly simply. Just by changing the definition of Fair to read:

Rule 1.Fair.E Touches white portion of first base, second base or third base.

If they did that they could even eliminate the part of 8.2.M. that is ambiguous.
________
Wiki Vaporizer

[greymule]

"Rule 1.Fair.E Touches first (white portion only), second or third base."

Of course we know how to call this, but if it were part of instructions or a legal document, it would have to read, "Touches first (any part of the white portion) . . ."

As written, the wording could be argued to mean, "Touches only the white portion of first" [not both portions]. The ambiguity could also be eliminated by deleting "only": i.e., "Touches first (white portion), second . . ."

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Rule 2.1 Move pitcher’s plate for 14U to 43’
Reasoning: To bring players in line with HS.
My opinion: None except many of the 14U players are 12 & 13 and how many of them are in HS?
Technically they mostly are in middle school, but still play what is loosely referred to as 'high school softball'

Rule 3.3 Optic Yellow for all divisions of ASA play. About time! The white ball is dying a slow death anyways - about the only leagues around here that play with white are the slow pitch leagues that use Clinchers. Soon the white softball will be up on that same shelf with white tennis balls and soon to be joined a little later by all white volleyballs.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by ASA/NYSSOBLUE

Rule 2.1 Move pitcher’s plate for 14U to 43’
Reasoning: To bring players in line with HS.
My opinion: None except many of the 14U players are 12 & 13 and how many of them are in HS?
Technically they mostly are in middle school, but still play what is loosely referred to as 'high school softball'

Rule 3.3 Optic Yellow for all divisions of ASA play. About time! The white ball is dying a slow death anyways - about the only leagues around here that play with white are the slow pitch leagues that use Clinchers. Soon the white softball will be up on that same shelf with white tennis balls and soon to be joined a little later by all white volleyballs.

But I LOVED Tachikara and Mikasa volleyballs! Best damn volleyballs you could have!

[Bandit]

Irishmafia.......could you explain your comment here......

Rule 4.6 JO pool play to allow free substitution
Reasoning: Participation
My opinion: Don’t they have two months to satisfy participation issues.

What do you mean they have 2 months to satisfy?

Thanks

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Bandit

Irishmafia.......could you explain your comment here......

Rule 4.6 JO pool play to allow free substitution
Reasoning: Participation
My opinion: Don’t they have two months to satisfy participation issues.

What do you mean they have 2 months to satisfy?

Thanks

Yeah, how long are the playing prior to a NC?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

If it's worded as posted it has a problem. Because it now reads, in it's most natural form, that a ball is fair if it touches only the white portion of first base.

Which is true. What are you reading into it that isn't there? What situation can you describe that would be improperly ruled if the rule change as written goes into effect?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Which is true. What are you reading into it that isn't there? What situation can you describe that would be improperly ruled if the rule change as written goes into effect?

Thought Greymule above did a better job than me, but guess still not quite clear if somebody is still not following us.

The rule as amended is subject to being misread to indicate that a ball which hits both the fair and foul portions of first base is not fair because it did not hit ONLY the white portion. The rule is currently ambiguous but we all know how to call it. It will remain so after the change. This is noteworthy to me since the change was to bring this rule into alignment with the other rule and could have resolved that situation.
________
Pattaya property

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

Thought Greymule above did a better job than me, but guess still not quite clear if somebody is still not following us.

The rule as amended is subject to being misread to indicate that a ball which hits both the fair and foul portions of first base is not fair because it did not hit ONLY the white portion. The rule is currently ambiguous but we all know how to call it. It will remain so after the change. This is noteworthy to me since the change was to bring this rule into alignment with the other rule and could have resolved that situation.

Again, this is NOT a change in the rule, but a definition. First base is defined as a 15x30 base. The definition of fair ball indicates that a ball which hits the base is fair. The change is to indicate that only that this applies to the white portion only. The actual rule which decides whether the ball is fair or foul is 8.2.M.1 & 2.

[youngump]

Yes, I know. But here's what we haven't yet communicated.
You say that:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The change is to indicate that only that this applies to the white portion only.

It's just not what the change says at least not if you don't know what it meant in the first place. The change says that it applies if the ball hits only the white portion.

There are two things, hitting the white portion only and the rule applying only if it hits the white portion. As written, it seems to indicate the former but it means the latter.
________
How to roll blunts

[JefferMC]

For what it's worth (and I realize that's not much), but I agree with youngump.

This yet another place where they clarify something and introduce ambiguity where it is not necessary (as if it is ever). Yes, we all know that the ball that hits both the white and colored portions of 1B is fair. Yes, we know we have a (different) rule to stipulate this. However, there is no reason why we have to insert the word "(only)" here in such a way that we have coaches ejecting themselves over it.

Or was that the intent?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

Yes, I know. But here's what we haven't yet communicated.
You say that:


It's just not what the change says at least not if you don't know what it meant in the first place. The change says that it applies if the ball hits only the white portion.

There are two things, hitting the white portion only and the rule applying only if it hits the white portion. As written, it seems to indicate the former but it means the latter.

This may be the smallest nit I've ever seen picked. You have to literally go out of your way to misinterpret this rule to mean what you're reading it to mean. I suppose there is, each year, in the entire country, a SINGLE new umpire that has never heard of the sport - and yes, THAT guy might read it wrong (or he might read it right ... or read the whole book and get it right anyway). But hopefully, whoever this guy's scheduler is will be smart enough to work him with someone who's been on the field before.

Truly ... EVERY person who has played this sport (including my 10 year old - I read her the rule and then created your example, and she got it right ... and thought it was an idiotic question) already knows this rule. If you feel we need to write every rule so that the Norwegian guy now living in Bassackward, South Dakota will get it on first glance without any training, the rule book is going to be 3 times as long.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

This may be the smallest nit I've ever seen picked. (or he might read it right ... or read the whole book and get it right anyway).

But it's trivially easy to rewrite this rule in a way that makes it clear. Which is why I made the comment that I hoped they weren't writing it that way. And why you think that most people understand fair/foul such that when they become umpires it doesn't need to be spelled out. There are plenty of folks that don't get it.

I'm curious as to your other point though. Where in the book is the actual rule spelled out? I don't have a '10 book but there's an '08 book online and in there the rule makes it clear that a ball hitting both is both fair and foul. See 8-2-M-1&2. Maybe that's been fixed, but if not, this is again an easy place to make it clear.
________
Hanna_Sex