At a National Tournament there is some room to debate. My personal experience is that a lot of places (state tournaments, state championships, different parks) "play by ASA rules" for tournaments and we all know they can add "local" rules but they chose not to. I know from my personal experience talking to coaches there is a movement to other rule sets based on the fact that ASA doesn't let them do free subs and the others do. It allows them to keep mom, dad and little susie happy by making it onto the field and getting some play time at that state, or even national championship. Again it might just be pool play but little susie got to play. Might be stupid but it is a virtually meaningless change that might keep some teams playing ASA ball.

And if little susie is on the team, why wouldn't she get some time without there being a rule?

Tell you what, let's play everybody, not keep score and give everyone a trophy? Don't buy into the participation mentality in championship play. This is a change that, IMO, is an out for weak coaches. But like I said, just my opinion.

Mine too. If the player is not good enough to earn playing time, play in a rec league, in-house or whatever.

I do support the mandatory PT rule in LL, but only because of the way drafts work. Unlimited batting orders and substitution just screw up the game and are "league rule" like in leading to trouble.

Movement, No. In reality, Yes
 

Additional players. Pool play. Extra batters. EP's. Ect.........

In Indiana there is no debate. There is no movement. It is happening. Coaches. Players. Travel organizations. Are not playing ASA ball because of the restricted substitution rules. Parks are changing from being ASA parks to parks representing other organizations
I can provide phone #'s or email address's (send me a personal note if you wish to have them) of travel organization coaches and directors who will enter a NSA tournament 100 miles away from their home field instead of playing in an ASA tournament 15 miles away all based on the ability of the coach to play additional players if he or she wishes.

I am a traditionilist. I like the 'book" rules. I believe the DP/Flex rule is one of the most powerful rules in the book. I believe the DP/Flex rule is the largest mis-understood rule in the book. I believe the DP/Fles rule scares some coaches due to intelect.

But softball has changed. Local organizations are dying. The local hometown vs hometown tournaments are drying up. Travel ball is up. Cost to compete is up (please checkout cost of equipment today vs 10 years ago). please don't compare national tournament participation numbers vs the number of teams competing at the local or even state level.

Simple scenario. 50 States. Each state only state has only 6 teams competing in the state 14 & under age group. Only 2 teams advance to the national championship. 50 x 2. 100 teams at National championship. Thought process......oh......look.......we have 100 team at the NC. We have no problems. WRONG. You only had 6 teams in the STATE tournament. We have a problem here

I believe I have a unique oppurtunity within this conversation. I have been lucky to officiate this great game. At a very high level. I have been involoved in the originazational level of this game within the city parks department, at the travel ball level & at the state level of ASA. My daughter is a A level travel ball player. She currently plays on a A level travel team. So in simple language I have seen and am living both sides of this fence. If we dont figure out how to tear this fence down or at least put a swinging gate in it....as far as ASA is concerned....we will continue to lose teams to the USFA, NSA, USSSA organizations.

Allowing for multiple substitions or allowing multiple players to participate within the tournaments within the pool play area is a simple fix. I can live with or without "participation" medals. And all that junk. There is room for both. But at the ASA state level we have to get our #'s up. This adjustment to the participation rules within the pool portion of a tournament will help.

I have been told that this rule has been presented mulitple times in the past at the national meetings. Only to be shot down by umpires. Why?

I ask a question.....how many times have many of us been at a NC and seen teams play in the early rounds of pool play and then to see them again in the tournament bracket portion later in the week....only to say to ourselves or within the umpire group....wow...that was a different team than what I had on Monday?

Last thought.....just because the rules might allow coaches to use multiple players I don't believe it is being suggested or written that they would "have to" use multiple players. Why not allow the possibilty and put the weight back onto the coaches. Let them take the heat form the parents paying the big bucks for thier daughter to play travel ball as to why the girl did not play. why should the organization (ASA) play or be the "bad" guy?

If you were told that, and believe that, then both you and your source(s) have very little knowledge of how things work at ASA.

Of the almost 300 voting members, only 15 are the ASA NUS. While other voting members (Commissioners, Player Reps) are also umpires, the simple fact is that the umpires do not and cannot kill a rule proposal like this that primarily affects and/or benefits the JO program if the JO Committee takes a strong stand in favor.

In the several years that I was a voting member (resigned earlier this year), that proposal never had the full support of the JO Committee. I can say that confidently, because one of my Committee assignments was on the Playing Rules Committee, which voted after hearing the recommendations of the various subcommittees. Until and unless that happens (the full support of the group charged with knowing and implementing the JO program), proposals like this will continue to fail.

The majority of Commissioners vote JO issues based on the level of support their own JO Commissioner has, or based on the JO Committee recommendation. The Player Reps, by and large, vote based on JO Committee recommendations, as many claim to little or no familiarity with JO issues. And so on.

Has been presented ????
 

So from your statement we can believe that a proposal of this type or on this particular subject has been made and not passed or had enough support to continue thru the needed process?

Yes, it has been proposed before to allow "batting the lineup" as an option on pool play.

I think I will be with Mike on this one.

Most of the weekend tournaments that I work, whether ASA or some other alphabet soup have some sort of "bat the lineup" or allow EP as well as DP/Flex in the Saturday pool play portion of the tournament.

Most of the showcase tournaments also have very liberal "substitution" rules.

When it comes time for championship play, let's stick to the substitution rules.

Like Mike said - they have two (or more) months to satisfy participation issues.

My perception is that so many tournaments and friendlies allow liberal substitutions that when it comes to championship play, a good number of coaches aren't familiar with the actual substitution rules and how to work within them.

OK, so liberalize the rule and use the same liberalized rule in pool and elim.

My experience with having two versions is like Andy, coaches don't adjust and batting order problems occur.

I can understand the playing time issue somewhat, even in high tournaments. I think most coaches, in a perfect world, where they could guarantee 100% perfect attendance and no injuries EVER, would likely like to have exactly 9 players... possibly 10 for a speedster CR/defensive replacement.

Since they cannot guarantee that, they need 12 or 13 on the team. And since most of these players pay to be on that team - parents have a reasonable expectation that their kid will see real action and improve over time - and that applies to the 12th and 13th best kids on the team as well.

It's different at the college level - those players are not paying to play - they aren't there sponsored by paying parents... they are "paid" by being able to go to school for free (or at least cheaper). The participation issue is not a deal there.

I see no reason ASA would be worse if they simply allowed 12 to bat with free substitution on defense. I'm not sure I completely understand why anyone would be against that, even umpires, even traditionalists. There's no downside to allowing consistent 12 to play at both pool and NC levels.

You are absolutely correct, the parents should expect those to whom they trust their children provide them with fair and, as times, equal playing time.

Maybe because while part of ASA's mission is to promote the game of softball, it is equally their duty to provide a path to a national championship and those are not determined by equal playing time, but on- field competition.

I can guarantee you that the moment it comes to winning or losing, the "participation" aspect disappears for the manager. And think about it. If a girl is not worth playing on at least something similar to a relative standard, why would the coach want this player involved if she isn't good enough to fill the bill if needed?

Remember, this folks voluntarily engaged their daughter in a competitive sport. And it is not a secret that every girl isn't a competitive and travel ball player and not every travel ball player isn't as competitive as some people expect.

Yet there is a place for these young ladies to play and ASA even has a championship level for them. But the coaches don't want the girls where they belong and it isn't their fault. :rolleyes:

My suggestion would be to either amend this proposed change to Class B only or embrace LL's format which dictates player's time on the field and at the plate. However, I would also predict that the coaches would complain about that because then they would have to play the girls they really don't want to play in a championship situation. Again, JMO.

Well, we had a situation last year where the umpires didn't adjust properly (okay, it wasn't really the UMPIRE's fault):

This year it was decided to split the ASA State tournament over two weekends since the scheduled state weekend was also the weekend for the HSL All-Star tournament (which killed All-star participation). Thus, 8U, 10U, 12U and 14U all played their tournaments on one weekend while the 16U and 18U tournaments were delayed a week or two. However, the organizer for the state offered a "State Warm-up" friendly during the same time as the State tournament and using some of the same facilities.

So 12U and 16/18U (combined) games going on in same complex. Paperwork stated 2EPs for the "warm-up" event. 12U, as a national qualifier, allowed no EP.

Umprires yelled to the on-site junior-UIC when a 16U team presented a lineup with 2 EP. When he gave the same answer the umpires gave (not allowed, because he'd just improperly instructed them 30 minutes earlier), both coaches "politely requested" he call the TD or UIC at the other complex, who explained that 12U was no EP, 16/18U did get EP.

Not just the coaches get confused.

if we can get leaping with toes down=legal im cool. thats great.

FWIW I would love to see awarding a base go away for IP as well..