Intent & Spirit of a Rule

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

We always talk about thinking of the intent of rules - sometimes a good thing, sometimes not

As noted, "we always talk about" these things. Unless I've heard it first hand or as an interpretation from the NUS, I try not to talk about what other people were thinking when enacting a rule or code.

This is the benefit of attending regional or national umpire clinics or schools. Even better, the convention where the cause and effect is presented and, if necessary debated. This is where you get to the meat of the reason for a rule. Granted, as we have seen in recent posts, even member of the NUS don't get it right even if they were in the room.

The problem I have with umpires citing "intent" or "spirit" of a rule is that many are just applying their view, not necessarily that of those who provided it. Of course, if there were not differing views or opinions, the title to this board could be changed to Softball War Stories.

I had an on-going, two month debate with a local coach/player/sponsor who insisted on telling me the rule establishing a 1-1 count was a speed-up rule ASA was putting into place to get more game into the day and make more money. Even after informing him of exactly why the rule was proposed and passed, he insisted I was wrong and had no idea what I was talking about.

Then again, I've have people including umpires insisting hands are part of the bat and it has always been that way. Another point why is discount claims of knowing intent or spirt, is that many umpires know this from LL when they played and have never heard anything different in the 2-3 clinics they have attended over the past 15-20 years. It is also an easy shortcut to a discussion when that individual really doesn't know the rule and is too lazy to learn.

Does that mean it should always be discounted? Nope, because there are a lot of people out there that do know the intent or spirt and it can be really simple. It is when this "reason" is used when the rule, in black and white, is being ignored and replaced with it.

[CecilOne]

It's a shame Mike doesn't care about umpires attending and listening to clinics.


For those that think the hands are part of ...., this post is in jest.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

As noted, "we always talk about" these things. Unless I've heard it first hand or as an interpretation from the NUS, I try not to talk about what other people were thinking when enacting a rule or code.

This is the benefit of attending regional or national umpire clinics or schools. Even better, the convention where the cause and effect is presented and, if necessary debated. This is where you get to the meat of the reason for a rule. Granted, as we have seen in recent posts, even member of the NUS don't get it right even if they were in the room.

The problem I have with umpires citing "intent" or "spirit" of a rule is that many are just applying their view, not necessarily that of those who provided it. Of course, if there were not differing views or opinions, the title to this board could be changed to Softball War Stories.

I had an on-going, two month debate with a local coach/player/sponsor who insisted on telling me the rule establishing a 1-1 count was a speed-up rule ASA was putting into place to get more game into the day and make more money. Even after informing him of exactly why the rule was proposed and passed, he insisted I was wrong and had no idea what I was talking about.

Then again, I've have people including umpires insisting hands are part of the bat and it has always been that way. Another point why is discount claims of knowing intent or spirt, is that many umpires know this from LL when they played and have never heard anything different in the 2-3 clinics they have attended over the past 15-20 years. It is also an easy shortcut to a discussion when that individual really doesn't know the rule and is too lazy to learn.

Does that mean it should always be discounted? Nope, because there are a lot of people out there that do know the intent or spirt and it can be really simple. It is when this "reason" is used when the rule, in black and white, is being ignored and replaced with it.

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)

2) I agree that "Intent of the rule" is not to be used for making up rules or worse, not enforcing rules. I hope my other question didn't imply that..

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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)
..

Not that Steve's information was not interesting and accurate in its reasoning.

However, the true intent of the change was to encourage the players to put the ball into play. The more the ball is hit, there is an equally higher chance of a hit or an out. Neither side gains an advantage without the specific skill that the other doesn't. (i.e., better defense, better slugging percentage, etc.)

It is true that a game with mismatched teams may finish quicker because of a run-rule ending, but not because there are more outs. However, the better team will score more runs at a quicker pace because they are more likely to put the ball into play instead of waiting for that first strike. When there are equally matched teams, the games run about the same as before.

When forced to hit, the better teams will thrive. The teams with the great defenses will check the ones with the hitters. It seems to be a vicious circle, but that is part of competitive sports and on any given day.....

[IRISHMAFIA]

BTW, the only group that was against the 1-1 count was the Senior committee which includes representing the Masters program. They agreed that they would support the 1-1 proposal if their game was exempted. The proposal was amended within 10 minutes of that request.

Since then, the Masters has requested the 1-1 count be applied to their game, so as Steve noted, it seems to be what the players want.

Also, the suggestion of courtesy fouls was raised and it was stated that if there was a demand from the players for that, it could be proposed the following year. When the following year came around, the only negative report that I heard came from the Women's Western D(?)s.

Some of those who spoke against the 1-1 the previous year, turned around because of their experience at nationals and stood up for the straight 1-1 count to stay as is with no courtesy fouls.

But that isn't the only rule out there. Some use "intent" when not calling an IP because they don't want to advance runners (FP) or frighten batters (SP), but that really shouldn't be there decision. Then you have the "intent & spirit" folks when they feel "trickery" was used by one team even if the issue was clearly within the scope of the rules. Love those Ol' Smitty umpires.

[KJUmp]

Irish/Steve....found the posts interesting. Thanks for the insight.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

2) I agree that "Intent of the rule" is not to be used for making up rules or worse, not enforcing rules. I hope my other question didn't imply that..

It just reminded me of the times when this is used haphazzardly.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It just reminded me of the times when this is used haphazzardly.

And boy, haven't we seen that!

Almost as much as those that like to use (NFHS)
10-2-3 g. make final decision on points not covered by the rules

when there is a rule, but they don't know (or don't like) the rule as written....

[NCASAUmp]

It's just been my experience that people talking about the "spirit of the rule" are simply trying to mask their own lack of rule knowledge with fluff and BS. Coaches use this argument to try to argue against the enforcement of a rule, and inexperienced umpires use it to try and argue a call that's not solidly founded in an actual, proper rule interpretation.

When you hear "spirit of the rule," beware. I prefer actual rule citations, which is how I've earned the nickname of "Rulebook" in my association - I wear it as a badge of honor.












...I think.

But hey, who do my fellow umpires go to for a rule interpretation/citation? Me, that's who!

[vcblue]

I worked with a person that has umpired for a long time, but has never learned the rules or dialed in the strike zone. Unfortunately, like most umpires like this one he is very strict about the rules he does know, like: No jewelry, no wrist bands, tuck in your shirt, Don't take off your helmet until you get in the dug out so on and so forth. I am not say that enforcing these are not important. But, if you have an inconsistent strike zone and then late in the game you reprimand a girl for taking of her helmet before entering the dugout (during a dead ball, mind you) I believe a coach has the right to say WTF.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

As noted, "we always talk about" these things. Unless I've heard it first hand or as an interpretation from the NUS, I try not to talk about what other people were thinking when enacting a rule or code.

This is the benefit of attending regional or national umpire clinics or schools. Even better, the convention where the cause and effect is presented and, if necessary debated. This is where you get to the meat of the reason for a rule. Granted, as we have seen in recent posts, even member of the NUS don't get it right even if they were in the room.

The problem I have with umpires citing "intent" or "spirit" of a rule is that many are just applying their view, not necessarily that of those who provided it. Of course, if there were not differing views or opinions, the title to this board could be changed to Softball War Stories.

I had an on-going, two month debate with a local coach/player/sponsor who insisted on telling me the rule establishing a 1-1 count was a speed-up rule ASA was putting into place to get more game into the day and make more money. Even after informing him of exactly why the rule was proposed and passed, he insisted I was wrong and had no idea what I was talking about.

Then again, I've have people including umpires insisting hands are part of the bat and it has always been that way. Another point why is discount claims of knowing intent or spirt, is that many umpires know this from LL when they played and have never heard anything different in the 2-3 clinics they have attended over the past 15-20 years. It is also an easy shortcut to a discussion when that individual really doesn't know the rule and is too lazy to learn.

Does that mean it should always be discounted? Nope, because there are a lot of people out there that do know the intent or spirt and it can be really simple. It is when this "reason" is used when the rule, in black and white, is being ignored and replaced with it.

Along the lines of some umpires and coaches who use the "gained no advantage" when failing to call or argue about an illegal pitch being called. Many IP's don't get called around here for either that reason or not enough knowledge on some umpires part of what actually constitutes and IP.

Joel