Proposed 2011 ASA Rule Changes Part I

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

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)

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

[Scooby]

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.

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

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by Scooby

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

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by youngump

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)

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

[CecilOne]

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.

[JEL]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by JEL

Why not eliminate the strap?

It's not used in HS nor NCAA.

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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

[darkside]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

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.