Proposed 2011 ASA Rule Changes Part I

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Bandit

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?

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.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

that proposal never had the full support of the JO Committee.

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?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Bandit

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.

[Andy]

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Andy

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

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.

[wadeintothem]

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..