Intent & Spirit of a Rule

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

1) OK, I give up... What was the exact reason for proposing and passing the 1 an 1 count?
(Not that I do slow-pitch.... just curious)

I was a member of the slow pitch task force that got that rule changed by ASA a few years ago; I feel like can tell you about the intent of that rule.

I can't tell you what rationale was used by USSSA when they first changed from 4 balls and 3 strikes to 3 balls and 2 strikes; maybe THEY considered it a speed up rule. I know in my area, they hold tournaments with awfully short time frames, even compared to local league play. So maybe that was THEIR thoughts years ago.

Since that time, ASA has discussed that proposal many times over the years. Several times I know it failed just because the traditionalists refused to accept a 3-2 proposal; after all, everyone knows 4 balls is a walk and 3 strikes is an out, not any other number. And prior rule change proposals referred to that count.

Several years ago, ASA realized it was losing market share overall in the adult slowpitch game. So a task force was formed of council members who dealt with that game, either hosting tournaments, or just working on a regular basis with the teams, coaches, and even local leagues. We (the members of the task force) asked the teams at ASA Nationals, at other tournaments, at local leagues, what THEY felt the ASA game needed to compete more effectively; in other words, what would make you play more ASA?

They asked for 1) all bats to be legal. We would NOT compromise the ASA bat program. They asked for 2) the 3-2 count!! They liked it, they wanted it, it was what they played almost everywhere else. So we more carefully worded a rule change proposal saying that 4 balls and three strikes were STILL the rule in all forms of softball, but you start with a 1-1 count. It passed. They asked for 3) a more structured home run limit in the classifications. We rewrote that, it passed. They asked for 4) a PURE rec division, one with zero home runs, inning ending home runs. We passed Class E/Rec that year. They asked for 5) the 3 to 10' arc they played elsewhere. It took an extra year to succeed, but then that passed (we waited a year for that proposal, to not fragment with too many controversial issues at the same year).

There have been other issues sullied about; bases back to 70, pitching distances back to 53' or 56', pitching chutes (can pitch from anywhere between two points), courtesy fouls. They will continue to be discussed each year, and some may be adopted piecemeal. But I am no longer a voting council member, and no longer on the task force.

More than you asked, maybe more than you wanted to know (although I bet NCASA was interested). Short version; we gave the game the players wanted back to them, instead of deciding for them what they needed to adjust to. If the end result is quicker paced games; personally, I think that is great. But it wasn't the reason for the change.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

More than you asked, maybe more than you wanted to know (although I bet NCASA was interested).

You seem to know me well.