Proposed ASA SP Rules Changes

[IRISHMAFIA]

· Two different proposals-one to drop the base on ball count to three, and another poorly written proposal which I believe was meant to reduce the strike count to two, but is not properly worded in that manner.
· Define a “wild throw” as one which cannot be caught or stopped by the fielder with ordinary effort.
· Change the distance of the pitcher’s plate from HP to 53’. There are two proposals for this. One specifying A ball while the other for all SP.
· Change the distance of bases to 70’ for all SP.
· Minimum fence distance for Major class to be 325’
· Change the ball in women’s and coed softball to the 12” ball
· (All) In Championship Play, teams shall not display the names and/or logos of any other softball assns on their uniforms
· In the Co-ed game, the battery will be required to be as follows: One male as the pitcher and one female as the catcher. This is based on the belief than men have quicker reaction time than women. (The guy that thought of this one must be a member at Augusta National).
· Effect for excess HRs at the Class D level: First HR, batter is ruled out. Second HR, two outs are assessed. Third and any succeeding HRs result in that half-inning will be declared over.
· Change the maximum height of a pitch to 10’.
· Keep the maximum height of a pitch at 12’, but eliminate the minimum of 6’. Their reasoning: “There is no need to have minimum of 6’ as the umpire has excessive speed to control the pitcher. Few pitches will ever be in the strike zone when under 6”, but if there is one, why should it not be a strike.” My opinion: If you have ever been to a National school, they usually demonstrate that it is impossible to throw a ball that gets past the plate in the air lower than 6’ without using excessive speed. Also, if we start calling excessive speed, the teams will need about 8 pitchers to last the game. Many pitchers have occasional problems let alone non-pitchers.
· Allow a pitch which passes through the strike zone and touches the plate to be ruled a strike. My opinion: This will be misinterpreted more than any other rule in the book and most legal pitches which hit the plate cannot possibly pass through the strike zone of an adult player.
· (All) After th ball is in play, the batter may not step out of the batter’s box to stop play unless time has been granted by the umpire. Effect: Action continues and the pitch will be called. My opinion – redundant..
· (Seniors & Masters) If the same batter is walked more than one time in the first six inning of a game, he will receive a two base award.
· Numerous proposals to eliminate running the bases on an over-the-fence HR and four-base awards.
· Add to effect on awarded based due to 8.6.G-M: Once a base runner advances on an awarded base, when the base runner advances to or past the next base, the base runner may no longer return to touch any missed base or one left too soon after a fly ball was touched by a fielder.
· (All) After a runner has scored and missed HP and is physically assisted back to home, the ball is dead, the runner is out and the run is nullified.
· (All) Offensive and defensive USC conduct results in a dead ball. If offensive, the runner is ruled out and ejected and all runners returned to last base touched. If defensive, advance the runners to the base had this USC conduct not occurred.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
· In the Co-ed game, the battery will be required to be as follows: One male as the pitcher and one female as the catcher. This is based on the belief than men have quicker reaction time than women. (The guy that thought of this one must be a member at Augusta National).

Nah, the explantion about reaction times was just their way of protecting the fragile male ego.

The REAL reason for the propopsal is because men are more hard headed than women.

[Edited by Dakota on Nov 4th, 2002 at 12:11 PM]

[gsf23]

Personally I have a real problem with homeruns being declared outs. I see the reasoning behind it, you don't want to have teams load up and just pound HR's all day, but if that is what they are doing, them bump them up in class.

The reason I have a problem is because this is what I see happening all the time. A team will use up all of it's homeruns, and then a guy will come up, that has never hit a homerun before and all of a sudden everything goes right and he pops one out of the yard and now instead of being able to enjoy that moment, he's called out or in some cases ejected from the game for hitting the ball well. Or, you get a power hitter comming up, and he's afraid to swing the bat because he doesn't want to take a chance on hitting a homerun, so he just pounds it into the ground. It's like telling a basketball player that your team has made too many three-point shots so if you make another one, you get kicked out of the game and the other team gets the ball. Just doesn't make any sense.

I'd much rather see it that if you hit one over the fence after your limit, it's a base hit, all runners get one base. We've used this rule in many leagues that I umpire and I've never had a problem with a team comming up and hitting a ton of homeruns after they have used their limit.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by gsf23
Personally I have a real problem with homeruns being declared outs. I see the reasoning behind it, you don't want to have teams load up and just pound HR's all day, but if that is what they are doing, them bump them up in class.

The reason I have a problem is because this is what I see happening all the time. A team will use up all of it's homeruns, and then a guy will come up, that has never hit a homerun before and all of a sudden everything goes right and he pops one out of the yard and now instead of being able to enjoy that moment, he's called out or in some cases ejected from the game for hitting the ball well. Or, you get a power hitter comming up, and he's afraid to swing the bat because he doesn't want to take a chance on hitting a homerun, so he just pounds it into the ground. It's like telling a basketball player that your team has made too many three-point shots so if you make another one, you get kicked out of the game and the other team gets the ball. Just doesn't make any sense.

I'd much rather see it that if you hit one over the fence after your limit, it's a base hit, all runners get one base. We've used this rule in many leagues that I umpire and I've never had a problem with a team comming up and hitting a ton of homeruns after they have used their limit.

This only applies to D ball where no HRs are allowed and it is for the exact reason you mention including your final paragraph. If you don't rule them outs, teams will load up and just hit the ball over the fence all day.

There is a field in Richmond that had a short rightfield fence and the ground rule was a double for any ball leaving the field of play over this fence. My team just hit the hell out of the tennis court beyond the fence for most the game which took about 2 hours to play.

By the time you see a team abusing HRs, it is too late to bump them up to the next division.

There has to be a place for the little guy to play and the trophy hunters should be banished, one way or the other.

[greymule]

Whatever they demonstrated at that school, around here, players and umpires do not recognize excessive speed unless the ball is thrown practically at modified speed. That includes tournaments in which teams from eight or nine states participate, so it's not just us. Nobody expects excessive speed to be called if the pitch is simply "flat." The rule about ejection was to penalize a pitcher who was being unsportsmanlike, not who threw a second pitch at 5 feet 11 inches. Bad suggestion!

As for allowing the ball to hit the plate—or disregarding the existence of the plate in determining strikes—I think it's quite common for a pitch to enter the strike zone and then hit the plate. It would allow more strikes to be called, but I'm still against it. Why not just go to mat ball?

Most leagues in this area, even the big tournaments, start with a 1-1 count and allow the batter one foul after two strikes.

Years ago, an ump kept calling excessive speed on our pitcher, who then argued that he was throwing a proper arc. The ump told him that his arc was OK, but within that arc, his pitches were traveling too fast!

[oppool]

Personally It would not hurt my feeling to do away with the 6' min in SP yes you may also have to rewrite the part in the book now for excessive speed removal BUT it would eliminate one more whining point by alot of players. I would also favor the rewriting or clarifing of the Obstruction ruling mention in the other posting. Also would be in favor of the moving of the bases and pitcher mound back in SP. Some of our leagues use the 1 and 1 count to start off the batters I also dont see a problem with that it does somewhat speed up the game.

Don't see a reason to change the HR rule, changing the womens ball to 12" in co-ed would even create a bigger disadvantage in the lower leagues and wouldnt bet on the man only being able to pitch in co-ed even getting close to passing. Would also be against bringing the height of arcs down to 10' dont see any possible reason for it except getting the pitcher battered a little more. Don't see a reason to change the physically assisted rule or the USC to a immediate dead ball situation would help any situations


Another rainy day in N. Texas

Don

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by oppool
Personally It would not hurt my feeling to do away with the 6' min in SP yes you may also have to rewrite the part in the book now for excessive speed removal BUT it would eliminate one more whining point by alot of players. I would also favor the rewriting or clarifing of the Obstruction ruling mention in the other posting. Also would be in favor of the moving of the bases and pitcher mound back in SP. Some of our leagues use the 1 and 1 count to start off the batters I also dont see a problem with that it does somewhat speed up the game.

Don't see a reason to change the HR rule, changing the womens ball to 12" in co-ed would even create a bigger disadvantage in the lower leagues and wouldnt bet on the man only being able to pitch in co-ed even getting close to passing. Would also be against bringing the height of arcs down to 10' dont see any possible reason for it except getting the pitcher battered a little more. Don't see a reason to change the physically assisted rule or the USC to a immediate dead ball situation would help any situations


Another rainy day in N. Texas

Don

Don,

You're kidding, right? You think instead of whining about a "flat" pitch they would TELL you about the "modified" pitch they just saw HAD to be illegal? If you think there is disparity in umpire's judgment of 6', what to you see the difference in what umpires believe is "too" fast.

Nothing to rewrite in Obstruction. If the player does not possess the ball, and they impede the runner, it is obstruction. I think this makes the rule much clearer.

To which HR rule are you referring? The "D"s or the walk-offs. I don't care much for the D HR change, but I like the walk-off.

The physical assistance at home is a clarification as a runner is usually no longer considered a runner once they've crossed the plate.

The USC change is in relation to a discussion I had with Walt Sparks in August. I assume he, or someone else had a problem which sparked this proposal. If a runner rounded 1B while the ball was in the outfield and for some reason attacked, punched, ran over (you get the point) F3, the umpire has no rule to do anything until the play was over and then, he could only eject the player. This is a provision to kill the play immediately and adds a little bite to the penalty involved.

[greymule]

Define a “wild throw” as one which cannot be caught or stopped by the fielder with ordinary effort.

At first, I thought this might be just for scoring purposes or something. But I wonder if this is to prevent a fielder from allowing a throw to go into DBT if the defense would gain an advantage. It could happen: Runner tags at 1B on a long fly, the throw to 2B makes its way through the infield, and the runner makes it around 3B and is going to make it home, but a fielder allows the ball to roll into the dugout. Runner then has to go back to 3B.

Is there some other reason for changing this definition?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
Whatever they demonstrated at that school, around here, players and umpires do not recognize excessive speed unless the ball is thrown practically at modified speed. That includes tournaments in which teams from eight or nine states participate, so it's not just us. Nobody expects excessive speed to be called if the pitch is simply "flat." The rule about ejection was to penalize a pitcher who was being unsportsmanlike, not who threw a second pitch at 5 feet 11 inches. Bad suggestion!

I agree. Most umpires don't call it because there wouldn't be anyone left to pitch and it's hard enough to get these guys to throw strikes as it is.

As for allowing the ball to hit the plate—or disregarding the existence of the plate in determining strikes—I think it's quite common for a pitch to enter the strike zone and then hit the plate. It would allow more strikes to be called, but I'm still against it. Why not just go to mat ball?

While it is possible for a pitch to pass through the strike zone and catch a portion of the plate, it is more likely that if it hits the plate, it did not get over that front knee at the front of the plate. Also, it would just create to the confusion by allowing some to be strikes and others balls.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
Define a “wild throw” as one which cannot be caught or stopped by the fielder with ordinary effort.

At first, I thought this might be just for scoring purposes or something. But I wonder if this is to prevent a fielder from allowing a throw to go into DBT if the defense would gain an advantage. It could happen: Runner tags at 1B on a long fly, the throw to 2B makes its way through the infield, and the runner makes it around 3B and is going to make it home, but a fielder allows the ball to roll into the dugout. Runner then has to go back to 3B.

Is there some other reason for changing this definition?

The reason given was to establish a difference between an overthow and an errant throw. An overthrow is known in ASA as a thrown ball which leaves the playing field or becomes blocked.

[greymule]

Thanks for the explanation, IrishMafia. When would we as umpires have to know the difference between a wild (errant) throw and an overthrow?

Incidentally, as regards "flat pitches." When I started playing slow pitch (mid-1960s), nobody complained about flat pitches, because virtually everybody had played a lot of baseball and thought flat pitches were the easiest to hit.

[Edited by greymule on Nov 4th, 2002 at 06:58 PM]

[Tap]

Thanks Mike. It will be interesting to see what passes. Please keep us posted.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

When I was in College (late 70's - early 80's)..............seems like centuries ago.............my roomies/buddies and I put together a pretty good softball team.............

We won 2nd place in all school Intramurals in 1979 (Which included UT (University of Texas for the uninformed) Law School........who had teams together for more than 2-3 seasons...............

My Junior year...........UT decided to re-do all of the Intramural outdoor fields............so Spring Soccer, softball and flag football were off for that Spring........

We decided to play in the local City League (which was an ASA league)............our head honcho signed us up as a class "B" Mens team...........(I don't even know if there was a HR limit back then)

Boy.........did we ever learn our lesson..............we got our asses kicked...............

In that 20 (something) game season...........I think we won 3 or 4 games..................

The behemoths we faces cranked HR after HR.........where we maybe put 1-2 out per game.........and had always relied on solid defense...................

We were a great College intramural team............defense.......speed......very good outfield............great infield at the corners.........

But..........we got our butts handed to us in our hats playing serious softball...................

I had fun...........but we hated losing.............

If anyone is interested..........I can tell you the prostitute story on the way to the softball field story.........................grin

Joel

[oppool]

You're kidding, right? You think instead of whining about a "flat" pitch they would TELL you about the "modified" pitch they just saw HAD to be illegal? If you think there is disparity in umpire's judgment of 6', what to you see the difference in what umpires believe is "too" fast.

Nobody in this area has even seen Modified Pitch so unless the pitch would get up to fast-pitch speeds I dont think we have to listen to em whine about that. I just believe the point that from 50+ feet in slow pitch it is pretty impossible to throw a strike without it hitting the 6' mark pretty much takes the need for the 6' requirement out of the picture. It is also very hard to get illegal out in time on these pitches that come in below 6' that this would get rid of having to call....

Nothing to rewrite in Obstruction. If the player does not possess the ball, and they impede the runner, it is
obstruction. I think this makes the rule much clearer.

I agree fully if stated this way in the rule book it will be much easier for everyone to understand than the ball must be closer than the runner

To which HR rule are you referring? The "D"s or the walk-offs. I don't care much for the D HR change, but I like the walk-off.

We agree again. I wont tell anyone if you wont. I dont see a need in changing the existing excessive HR rule..

The physical assistance at home is a clarification as a runner is usually no longer considered a runner once they've crossed the plate.

I would have to disagree on this if a runner that has not touched HP I would still consider a runner until he has entered the dugout or DBT..

The USC change is in relation to a discussion I had with Walt Sparks in August. I assume he, or someone else had
a problem which sparked this proposal. If a runner rounded 1B while the ball was in the outfield and for some reason attacked, punched, ran over (you get the point) F3, the umpire has no rule to do anything until the play was over and then, he could only eject the player. This is a provision to kill the play immediately and adds a little bite to the penalty involved.

You could rule obstruction F3 must have been to close(just kidding). I would agree with a tougher penalty as the player or the player closest to home would be called out and the player ejected. Just not sure best bet would be to call dead ball. What if the USC was to try to break up a double play our we just going to allow the one out and player ejection because of the dead ball situation??


Just a few thoughts

Don

[IRISHMAFIA]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by oppool

The physical assistance at home is a clarification as a runner is usually no longer considered a runner once they've crossed the plate.

I would have to disagree on this if a runner that has not touched HP I would still consider a runner until he has entered the dugout or DBT...

But, by rule, if the runner passes the plate you are to rule them safe until properly appealed by the defense. Like I said, this is a clarification for those who saw it differently

The USC change is in relation to a discussion I had with Walt Sparks in August. I assume he, or someone else had
a problem which sparked this proposal. If a runner rounded 1B while the ball was in the outfield and for some reason attacked, punched, ran over (you get the point) F3, the umpire has no rule to do anything until the play was over and then, he could only eject the player. This is a provision to kill the play immediately and adds a little bite to the penalty involved.


You could rule obstruction F3 must have been to close(just kidding). I would agree with a tougher penalty as the player or the player closest to home would be called out and the player ejected. Just not sure best bet would be to call dead ball. What if the USC was to try to break up a double play our we just going to allow the one out and player ejection because of the dead ball situation??.

No, that is already covered by the rules. This new rule gives the umpire authority to take action should something occur not covered by the rules.

The example similar to the one offered by Walt Sparks (another damn Texan) was this: BR & F3 don't particularly care for each other and been jawing the whole game. As the BR is rounding 1B while the ball is in the outfield, the runner drops F3 with a right to the chops. Under the rules the only authority the umpire had was to wait until the end of the play and then eject the runner. If you don't kill the ball, you may have multiple live runners at the same time you have a bench-clearing brawl around 1B.

The new rule just gives the umpire an instant resolution and additional penalty should something like this happen. And odds are, this did happen somewhere which is what usually brings about new rules like this one.

Just a few thoughts

Don

As usual, they are always appreciated.