2011 ASA Rule Changes with Comments
 

Are now posted. Click here.

Good information, thanks. If 2011 is anything like 2010, I'll be able to apply those during the one or two tournaments that are held in Northern VA.

Mike, is this wording final? I noticed that in 3-1-H, they're allowing players to engrave or paint their names on the bat. Does this allowance include such actions on the barrel? As written, it would appear so.

Yes.

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?

One of two things here. Either you're kidding or you are.....well, nevermind.

What's the difference between painting the exterior of your house and putting up the house number on the steps or by the door?

When working in a spreadsheet, what's the different between filling a cell with color and changing the contents to the same color?

I guess it should also be pointed out that it states "repainting" the bat. To me, and probably many others, this means repainting the bat, the entire bat, not just adding an identifying mark on it.

You guys do not think 70 ft. bases are going to affect the slow pitch game?
What about mechanics?

Mechanics do not change, no need. This is not new to ASA. In the past, the bases for higher level of ball have reached 80' at one point and that was fun. Too many people are acting like this is the end of the world while in reality, it is just one more stride.

AFA increased safety for the defense is concerned, it is a misconception. Infielders have always had the ability to stand as deep as they please regardless of the location of the bases or cut of the infield.

If anything, it makes it a little safer for the runners of 1B or 3B

And they most certainly take advantage of this. They often play so far back, I'm standing as far as 10 feet into the grass.

An extra 5 feet won't be that big a deal.

I see others do that; I simply refuse to play that game. Just like the players, I have a job to do, and to do it effectively, it requires me to be in the infield. And, I find that I got a lot more ankle twists and rolls when I started on the grass, and/or made the transition back to the infield.

If an "infielder" starts on the grass, I will move more to one side or the other (depending on the game situation, or if he is well in the 3-4 hole for a hook pull hitter) to be out of his range, but I stay in the infield.

In prior years, as a member of the Slow Pitch Task Force, our discussion of 70' didn't consider helping the defense to play deeper. We discussed that the defense could make a "defensive" knock-the-ball-down-and-still-have-time-to-throw-a-runner-out play if the runners had to take one or two more steps to each base. If some ying-yang thinks this was the permission to play deeper, go ahead and think that.

The only negative raised in the past was from Parks and Rec people that claimed it would cost them too much to 1) move or add new base stobbs, 2) cut the grass deeper, and 3) possibly have to move a sprinkler head or two as a result of the different grass cut. Perhaps the supposed "safety" aspect helped convince them to stop fighting the option.

Most of the time, in these situations, I just split the difference and move up. Saves me about 5 steps when trying to get inside, and 5 steps can be a lifesaver.

As far as our 2 man mechanics with runners on:

Back in the 60's (I was not umping yet), there were 60 ft. bases in slow pitch and the classic inside outside theory was taught, prevailed & worked.

In the early 70's; bases were moved back to 65 ft. ASA kept the classic inside outside method while USSSA adjusted with the inside starting. (That is how I started). NSA kept the classic inside outside mechanics with some guys throwing in some morphing of USSSA.

Then we changed bases back to 70 ft but still sort of kept the classic inside outside with some morphing of USSSA leftovers. (But not in our mechanic book).

Now we have : 70 ft. bases
: Infielders playing deeper than Alabama is deep south.
: 5 man deep infields.
: Composite bats that they have learned how to alter and turn into deadly weapons.

But we still are teaching the inside outside classic umping from the 60's saying; "You just have to get there."

It is not that I am old, had a knee replacement and am fat.

I have been mulling this for years and talked to many over that time.

Remember when you get nailed and are standing in front of a fielder, it is dead ball. The boys do not understand or take kindly to that. (Plus it hurts like heck).

I am really leaning toward: "Screw the overall inside outside theory" IMPOSSIBLE TO DO. Have seen more guys get in the way, not get in position, run their butts off and still not be anywhere near they should be.

My premise I think is that the base umpire stays outside with runners on period. If a "perfect storm" happens and he can come in and help or backup his partner, communicate and God Bless him.

Naturally a few of the responsibilities will change. Not a big deal I think,

Also try to remember how many games some of our guys are working a day in tournament settings.

JUST A START.

Something to think about?

And yes I have worked the "longer bases". 2 man with runners on just needs some attention.

Nothing new, they've been there for about 10 years now.

This can be a problem, but I found it to be helpful at times when the middle guy will play up.

It is what it is. I've seen balls of aluminum bats damn near take off a runner's head on 2B. I cannot be worried about that. If I cannot avoid being hit with the ball, I shouldn't be out on the field.

Only one answer to that ;). Don't get in the way.


I guess I just don't see the issue. I've had a knee replacement, was fat when working and am old enough. I've worked 80' bases and didn't have a problem just a few extra steps. The players didn't seem to mind, even had a straight steal on a pitch the catcher received in flight.

Since when do we change mechanic because the umpire isn't capable of doing the job? I've worked baseball and softball, 1-umpire through 6-umpire games and almost as many mechanic variations and I have no problem with I/O. To me, it is the best default available, while others fit well under specific circumstances with advanced crews.


JMHO

As it was explained to me, the very reason why SP umpires always start in B is because umpires were having troubles moving around the field. The average age of umpires is getting higher, younger guys don't want the job (darn sissies), and accommodations were made to the mechanics to allow for an aging crew.

Again, that's how it was explained to me. Don't shoot the messenger. :D

Well, that was a very interesting session at the UIC clinic the year that was announced. The NUS (not all involved or approving of the change) was pretty much confronted by people lining up in the aisle to have a say about the change.

If memory serves me correctly, it went down like this:

A portion of that discussion was "since when did we change mechanics to save the umpire's knees"? To anyone's memory, this was the first time Bernie was speechless. For that matter, it was the first two times Bernie didn't have an answer. Henry P had to take over the discussion. The reason given was that the majority of the time in the 2-umpire system, the BU is in the B, so why not just start them there so there was no rush to beat the BR inside on a hit to the OF.

Henry told us that if we, as a group, did not want it, they wouldn't shove it down our throat. It actually went to a vote and easily passed.

But the best part was when one of my friends/duic and I were standing outside the meeting room near the entrance to the bar (imagine that) and Bernie walked out and up to us. My friend says, "What's the matter, Bernie, cat got your tongue?" Bernie just threw his arms up in the air and walked away in silence. :D

Phil may have presented it that way; as may have others.

But that is merely a perspective. The simple fact is that NO ONE, regardless the age, needs to do extra work solely to do extra work, if there is no advantage. There is no necessity for a slow pitch umpire to start in "A" (like fastpitch looking for the illegal pitch) with no runners, since the only next play is a call at first on an infield grounder (you step up and are already in perfect position), a buttonhook on the ball hit to the outfield (and you are already closer to your next position than starting in "A", or going out on a fly ball (and you now can help on more of the field than you could from "A").

To my knowledge, no one has ever presented a substantial advantage or need in start in "A" versus "B" in slowpitch. Even the holdouts on the NUS admitted they only wanted to maintain a consistency between slowpitch and fastpitch, not that there was any other reason. So, why not adapt to the best possible position??

Well, starting in A versus B is 6 of one, half dozen the other. A gets you in motion towards 2B, B makes it easier to buttonhook.

Though if consistency between FP, MP and SP is an eventual goal, then it would be nice to have either everyone switch to B, or have SP switch back to A.

Consistency with FP was the "excuse" for the SP PU to drop to the set position at the pitch's release instead of first determining legal/illegal.

Consistency is something that belongs within the game, not necessarily among the games. While I don't have a problem with maintaining standard mechanics for softball in general, each game has different demands and should be officiated accordingly.

I think maybe you fellas are getting off the track with my original thoughts.

Consistency between the two games or even the three is what has gotten us in trouble. You can not try to umpire them with the same mechanics.
They are not the same and have definite different styles and demands.

As far as starting in the A or B position does not matter so much either. At a long tournament day and the guys want to start in the B, I do not care.

I am not rying to accommodate or change mechanics to cover or take care of my limitations or more recent shortcomings. I have retired from World Class ball for some time now since some other people need a chance and I could no longer give the type of game it deserves.
I am still active in many levels of Slow, Fast and Baseball.

I am very heavily involved and have an opportunity to shape or adjust some National mindsets. As a student of the fine art of umping; I truly believe we have let the slow-pitch game pass us by. Not me, myself, my fat old body with the replaced knee. I am trying to help a craft I love.
I am talking about me in my prime or another 30 something umpires I evaluate that either get in the way or cannot get to a proper angle or help his partner or do justice to the game as he is forced to start in an antiquated position and not physically able to get to where they are supposed to be. (Unless they posses super powers). This game has changed.

Now fellas, this is only with runners on base is slow-pitch softball.
Do you understand if you are "macho" and start somewhere in front of the fielders because you are not going to change your game for the players, "God forbid", you have no insurance coverage because you are not where you are supposed to be by national mechanics?

Yeah I knew Merle, have met Bernie, taught with Brinkman, met Emile and considered John Mc Sherry a friend. I am not impressed with myself or blowing smoke.

I put this on this board because I have lurked for years and noticed some very level headed thoughtfull, veteran individuals and wanted to pick your brains.

I am of the mindset that slow-pitch mechanics with base runners on base is in need of an adjustment.

Your inputs would be respected and appreciated.

I think we all agree with this.

That's rubbish. The length of the day should be irrelevant to the point. If you need to adjust your mechanics to accommodate how many games you get, either you accepted too many games or you shouldn't be on the field.

Do not confuse that with special situations where additional games are necessitated by other issues like weather or injury.

"Fellas"?

Where are you getting this crap? That final statement is completely false.

Then why mention it?:confused:

And I think the FP mechanics need changing, go figure.

And that's precisely why I said "if." If that's how they want me to do it, then by golly, that's how I'm gonna do it. If ASA (or any association, for that matter) wants consistency among their umpires across varying levels of their programs, then so be it.

But SP is a completely different animal and has a strike zone that MUST be called differently from FP. FP and MP PUs track the pitch through the zone in a relatively straight line, whereas SP umpires track the pitch at an odd angle. Couple that with the fact that we're also governing such things as minimum and maximum height.

But that's going off into a completely different tangent for another thread.

Which is why I just started another one, called Mechanics discussion.

Always knew you were a smart man. :)

OK Mr. Irish.
I am out of your sanbox.
I am not worthy to discuss anything with the all knowing.
Wiil not let the door hit me.

So you are one and done? You said you had some ideas, but never presented anything in particular.

That's the best you can do?

Your response leads me to believe you haven't been around as long as you noted. Let me make this easy. What have I stated isn't true? I have no problem with contrary views, but I'm not going to sit down and say it is fact because someone says so. I'm going to voice my opinion just as you expect to voice yours.

I surmise he wasn't expecting to have to play defense so quickly against his own teammate.

You want to make a point, you have to make a point. Not talk in circles and expect others to carry the conversation.

If I wanted that, I would talk to my wife. ;)

He has 12 posts. Let's give the guy a chance.

Not a problem. What is the discussion?

He wants or thinks changes should be made. Okay, let's hear some ideas. Haven't seen one offered for discussion, yet.

male/female balance
 

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". :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, Mike, what are you saying here? :D

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.

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!:D

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.

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. :D