2011 ASA Rule Changes with Comments

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Does Effect #2 below, if read literally, mean that the manager has the option without a batted ball or even a pitch?

"Rule 4 Section 1C [3]: If discovered using the wrong number of females or males in the outfield or infield and brought to the umpire’s attention by the offended team:

a) After a pitch legal or illegal or play made,
EFFECT: All action stands.
b) Before the next pitch legal or illegal or play made,
c) Before the defense has left the field,
d) Before the umpires have left the field of play,
EFFECT: b, c and d

1) If the batter hits the ball and reaches first base safely, and all other
runners have advanced at least one base. All action of the batted ball
stands.
2) If all runners, including the batter runner, do not advance at least one base.
The manager has the option of taking the result of the play, or awards the batter first base and advances all runners, if forced.

Comment: This adds a penalty for the defensive team not playing the right number of males and or females in the outfield and infield."

Also, in #2, should it read "an award of first base to the batter and all runners advancing if forced"; as a manger can't actually "award".

Last first. The manager has the option to accept the play or the awards.

I don't like this rule from the start as it is an indication the umpire is not doing their job. Also, how can all play stand AFTER one pitch, but not before the "next" pitch? To me, there is a wide range of possible misinterpretations here. Hopefully, it will be cleaned up before the books goes to print. If not, let's hope we get a clarification before the season starts.

And I can guarantee there will be arguments over what area is the infield or outfield and the words "grass" and "dirt" will be used often.

[AtlUmpSteve]

I would certainly believe the intent is identical to every other "appeal" or option situation; batting out of order, using an illegal glove, catcher's obstruction, etc. If discovered 1) while at bat, fixed with no penalty, if discovered 2) after completing the at bat but before a next pitch to a succeeding batter, the option, or if discovered 3) after completing the at bat but after a next pitch to a succeeding batter, play stands.

[BretMan]

This new rule creates a true "appeal" situation (ie: it cannot be ruled upon until brought to the umpire's attention). Will it be added to the all-inclusive list of appeal plays in the Rules Supplement?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I would certainly believe the intent is identical to every other "appeal" or option situation; batting out of order, using an illegal glove, catcher's obstruction, etc. If discovered 1) while at bat, fixed with no penalty, if discovered 2) after completing the at bat but before a next pitch to a succeeding batter, the option, or if discovered 3) after completing the at bat but after a next pitch to a succeeding batter, play stands.

Originally Posted by BretMan

This new rule creates a true "appeal" situation (ie: it cannot be ruled upon until brought to the umpire's attention). Will it be added to the all-inclusive list of appeal plays in the Rules Supplement?

I completely agree with Steve, just think we are going to see many different variations on the field and a load of excuses. Personally, I don't think the rule is necessary and have never had an issue with it.

And if a see a team set up improperly, I'm going to correct them.

[vcblue]

Originally Posted by darkside

Approved bats shall be considered altered if they are rolled, shaved, repainted, weighted or modified to change their characteristics from that produced by the manufacturer. Identifying the bat by means of laser marking, engraving, or painting the name or number of the player will not make the bat an altered bat.

They just contradicted themselves. Your bat will be considered altered if you paint it. You can paint your name or number on your bat.

So which is it and why does the council have such trouble with the English language and logic?

So are you saying that you have removed a bat because a persons name was marked on the shaft or barrel? WOW

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by vcblue

So are you saying that you have removed a bat because a persons name was marked on the shaft or barrel? WOW

Kind of weird to ask someone if they are saying something... and then WOW them for saying it when you weren't sure they were saying it in the first place.

No - I don't believe any umpire out there would toss a bat for someone's name being on it. REPAINTING, and writing your name on with a marker are two wildly different things.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Kind of weird to ask someone if they are saying something... and then WOW them for saying it when you weren't sure they were saying it in the first place.

So, Mike, what are you saying here?

No - I don't believe any umpire out there would toss a bat for someone's name being on it. REPAINTING, and writing your name on with a marker are two wildly different things.

I would like to think you are 100% correct. Unfortunately, we all know that some read rules strictly in black and white and not all have the benefit of additional information as how they are to be applied. And though that shouldn't be the case, in some areas it just is.

I can understand and believe an umpire may get talked into ruling in an inaccurate manner by a coach or player. I don't think it should happen, but it will.

[ASA Ump MN]

I don't like this rule from the start as it is an indication the umpire is not doing their job.

We had a strange one the other night!
And yes I agree good game management should take care of the problem before it happens. Normally it's just an outfielder trying to sneak in to far on a female batter and I'll back him up a bit, problem solved ....
BUT in our Co-Ed game with a male batter up, just before/as the pitcher started his delivery the 2nd basemen took off sprinting into the outfield. He was clearly not in the infield when the ball was batted and almost made the play before the outfielder called him off. I didn't have time to kill it IMO. Even more surprisingly the manager of the batting team said to me immediately "we would like to appeal the defensive having an un-even about of male players in the outfield"
Luckily my BU knew the rule as my first thought was the offense could take the result or do the AB over, like pitching the wrong ball in Co-Ed.
The defense mildly freaked out for a bit until explained to them and then verified by rule book after the game.

And as far as determining where the infield and outfield are defined, that's my judgment...PERIOD!

Anyway, great forum here!

Thanks Much~ Minnesota~

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ASA Ump MN

Luckily my BU knew the rule as my first thought was the offense could take the result or do the AB over, like pitching the wrong ball in Co-Ed.
The defense mildly freaked out for a bit until explained to them and then verified by rule book after the game.

And as far as determining where the infield and outfield are defined, that's my judgment...PERIOD!

Anyway, great forum here!

Thanks Much~ Minnesota~

Uhhh, no that is wrong. It is either the result of the play or the batter is awarded 1B & any runner forced, advanced.

[ASA Ump MN]

Like I said, the Base-Umpire knew the rule, it was just my original thought that popped into my head, when the offense protested, that it may be the same as the wrong ball violation in Co-Ed. I would have looked it up real quick anyway as I've never had it happen in my illustrious 3 year career.