Proposed 2011 ASA Rule Changes Part I
 

Here are some of the relative rule changes which will be presented for consideration in a couple weeks at the ASA National Convention in Shreveport, LA. Some are very general.


My opinions are strictly that, my opinions and not meant to portray that of anyone else or any association.


Let's do all a favor and when discusssing, cite and discuss just one per post. This may help keeping others straight on the subject at hand.


Rule 1.Fair.E Touches first (white portion only), second or third base.
Reasoning: Brings definition in line with rules applying to first base

Rule 2.1 Multiple proposals for SP that include adding 5’ where possible to taking Men’s only or all adult SP, except Seniors, to 70’
My opinion: Needs to be done for all SP. The “men’s only” will be killed in a heartbeat due to field logistics. It gives the D a chance to turn two and when it comes down to it, the increase is simply one additional stride to a runner.

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?

Rule 2.1 Move PP for all adult SP except Seniors to 53’
Reasoning: Lower arc will allow the pitchers more time to react. Huh?
My opinion: As with the bases, needs to be done and not just for safety reasons. The athleticism of the players, yes even the SP players, has improved over the 15 years and it is time to accommodate those abilities.

Rule 2.1 and 6.1 Install a 5’ pitcher’s box.
Reasoning: Safety
My opinion: Will create more problems than it will solve. I don’t know a pitcher (other than those dumb enough to stand there and admire their toss) who isn’t almost back to 2B as it is.

Rule 2.3 Double base defined as 15X30X5(max)
Reasoning: Insure both halves of the base are the same height.
My opinion: None

Rule 3.1 Safety Grip definition
Reasoning: Better defines what materials can be used for a grip and dictates that attachments MUST be attached to grip with safety tape.
My opinion: If nothing else, makes umpire’s life easier.

Rule 3.3 Ball surface may not be covered more than 40% by graphics.
Reasoning: Allow for additional colored marking for the ASA ball. Additional graphics cannot be brand identification, advertising or words.
My opinion: Ringling Bros will be in charge shortly

Rule 3.3 Ball must have ASA mark and not appear on ASA Non Approved Ball list
Reasoning: No one is checking the list and non-approved balls are being allow in Championship Play
My opinion: None

Rule 3.3 Optic Yellow for all divisions of ASA play.
Rule 3.3 Ball (12”) for SP to COR 52.0/Comp 300.0lbs
Reasoning: Consistency and Safety
My opinion: Great, especially if it reduces bat issues.

Rule 3.5 Helmet with chin straps requiring chin strap to be worn with no less and 1” gap between strap and player.
Reasoning: Players not wearing straps correctly.
My opinion: Rule already provides for all equipment being worn properly. This is not necessary and the specificity (is that a word?) just creates more issues for umpires especially when some coach decides to use this rule as a matter of playing head games with the opposition.

Rule 3.6 Changes required uniform for Men’s E ball to just a matching shirt with a number
Reasoning: This is all rec teams wear in league play.
My opinion: Remember the Ringling Bros comment earlier? If they want it just to be rec ball, there really isn’t a need for a national tournament.

Rule 4.1 Catcher’s Obstruction like penalty for having the wrong number of male/females in proper position.
Reasoning: No existing penalty
My opinion: If the umpire does his/her (for Tom: THEIR) job properly, this will not occur so this rule change is unnecessary.

Rule 4.1 SP may use unlimited extra hitters
Reasoning: It increase participation and does not give an advantage to a team hitting more than 11
My opinion: Seen this done locally and everyone likes batting everyone until someone gets tossed and a team with 18 players forfeits because there are no substitutes available. This is not a positive.

Rule 4.4 JO FP may use either 1 or 2 EP (not to be confused with DP/Flex)
Reasoning: Participation and competition with other sanctioning bodies.
My opinion: One or the other, EP or DP/Flex. Both is overkill and ludicrous.

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

Rule 4.7 Coaches’ wear to exclude “LEVI’S OR CUT-OFFS”
Reasoning: This is what is being covered at national tournaments and clinics.
My opinion: If I work for Levi, I’m suing the hell out of ASA. Levi is a brand, not a style or fashion. Use same logic as why ASA would not ban DeMarini or Miken or any other single brand, but the type/style/composition of the bat. Financially dangerous and unenforceable.

Rule 5.9 Proposal is poorly worded, but I believe it is to remove all Run Ahead rules for Men’s SP
Reasoning: Lively bats and balls mean teams can easily score 10 runs in an inning. Present rule rewards teams that use their HRs early.
My opinion: Moronic. Change the limit, okay, but to do away with it does not take into consideration the 50-0 game that may take 2 hours to complete.

Rule 6. A slew of proposals to award a base for IP in SP games.
Reasoning: Must be a penalty as a deterrent to the pitcher.
My opinion: Isn’t it bad enough that some umpires will not call IP in FP because of the award? Unlike in the small-ball game, the IP is not a deception which places the runner in jeopardy, so why would a runner benefit? Bad idea.
 
Rule 6.3 Change SP back to 12’ arc
Reasoning: Safety, never should have changed it.
My opinion: 10’ is NOT new ASA, provide little to no additional safety value and seem to go fine in all league and championship play I worked or observed.

Rule 6.3 Allowing leaping for women’s FP
Reasoning: Align the women’s pitching rules with the men
My opinion: About time, makes sense.

Hope that the official wording reads touches the white portion of first because a ball that touches the orange and white portion should be fair (which is how I think it was meant)
________
KIDS DEPAKOTE

Say what? That is what the proposed change states and is worded exactly as posted.

I do not agree. At the high school and college levels they are not allowed to leap. Keep the rules consistent.

I believe this is for the womens game and not JO. No problem with this rule change.

Joel

Clearer wording to avoid the sequential nature of the word "first":
Touches white portion of first base, second base, or third base.

For:
"Rule 3.5 Helmet with chin straps requiring chin strap to be worn with no less and 1” gap between strap and player.
Reasoning: Players not wearing straps correctly.
My opinion: Rule already provides for all equipment being worn properly. This is not necessary and the specificity (is that a word?) just creates more issues for umpires especially when some coach decides to use this rule as a matter of playing head games with the opposition."

How about "Rule 3.5 Helmet with chin straps to be worn with the strap touching the underside of the player's chin"
(or similar anatomical designation).
Removes the 1" judgment and actually follows the intent of the strap.

Why not eliminate the strap?

It's not used in HS nor NCAA.

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.

What it means to read is that it is fair if it touches the white portion of first base and not if it only touched the orange portion.

I know exactly what they were going for here and you do to; but if they had to add it then somebody didn't quite get it and I don't think it'll help to reword it ambiguously.
________
Zoloft lawsuit settlements

You better open up the rule book to the rule being changed. I think you are elsewhere.

The present rule 1.Fair Ball. E presently reads "Touches first, second or third base." Now go to 2.3.H where first base is defined as 15X30.

This change is to bring it in line with 2.3.H and 8.2.M.1. The wording is fine for the purpose meant.

Because when worn correctly (as is already required by rule which makes this change unnecessary), the strap holds the helmet in place to provide the maximum amount of protection to the player's head.

It also eliminates the constant "accidental" falling off of the helmet while the player is still involved in a play. Don't know why HS doesn't have it, but NCAA doesn't because their players are adults.

I understand what they're going for and why they're doing it. What I'm not doing very well communicating is how they missed it. If someone were to open the book and read that rule having no idea what a fair ball was and they saw that it was a fair ball if it touched first (white part only). They would be wrong but well within the realm of reasonable reading to say that if it did not touch the white part only that it was foul ball (and avoiding that is the whole point of the change)

A simple change to the change could make this completely unambiguous. Touches the white portion of first base, second base, or third base. It's less words and easier to parse.
________
PinayPORNSTARxx live

NSA & U-Trip also do not have the rule.

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?

Oh, did I happen to mention there is a proposal to eliminate the awarded base for an IP in the FP game? I think this has a much better shot at passing than getting a base award in SP.

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.

Way to stay on track!!! :rolleyes:

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

"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 . . ."

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.

:eek:

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

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?

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

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.

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.
________
How to roll blunts

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? :rolleyes:

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.

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

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..