![]() |
Proposed ASA Rule & Code Changes Available
Click here.
|
Of all of the rule change proposals, I believe the most ludicrous come from the former NUS member, Phil Gutierrez.
I reject completely the notion that a base ball on balls constitutes a base award for anyone OTHER than the batter. The batter is awarded first, other runners advance solely on the basis of being forced by the batter becoming a batter-runner, they have acquired no special award on their part, just the opportunity to advance without jeopardy. If a trailing runner is put out after passing the forced base they can reach without jeopardy, then just like every other similar play, that removes the force on advance runner!! If the third out is made before the lead runner touches the plate, it is a timing play; because there is no force any longer!! Removing base running responsibilities in order to celebrate is equally absurd. Faulty logic, poor thought process, in my opinion. |
Quote:
|
The SP batter's box thing is strange- Let's change the rule because they always break it anyhow. And didn't they change the box to 4 X 7 a few years ago, only to immediately make an "emergency rule change" to change it right back? :confused:
|
Quote:
I also am curious to know how Item 18 would work, in particular with Class E. How can you have a 0 HR limit, AND "one up?" :D And with respect to 19 and 22, if they do reduce the number of HRs to 0, I predict Class E completely going away. I can't see #30 passing, as it would completely run off coed teams from ASA. #37 - That language used to be in the book. What happened to it? I do predict some conflicts in the enforcement of that rule, since there are some (rare) circumstances where the offending team DOES somehow benefit from breaking a rule. I also predict some coaches attempting to use this rule to justify making calls that deviate from the rest of the playing rules, claiming that not doing so would create some sort of an "advantage." |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
As much as we don't like to admit it, we have to look to some of our competitors, and they have thriving "E" classifications. Question is: why? Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I can see this becoming an issue every time there in INT and the defense subsequently turns a double play. Pretty soon every call will be a DDB with a manager's option. That may be good for a neighborhood whiffle ball game, but, IMO, not for the game of organized softball. |
Item #27 - Pitching
Item #27 proposes that pitching regulations of Mens and Women/JO Olympic
be unified in Rule 6-3. (Add Women/JO to H & L and eliminate sub-sections I & K) a)This obviously would eliminate the "leaping" scenario of Women/JO Olympic as long as the pivot foot toe is pointed downward when both feet are airborne. (possibly eliminate some of the chirping from coaches?) b) If Women/JO are added to sub-section H, this would eliminate the section which indicates that the step must be within the 24-inch length of the pitching plate. (is this good? bad? no big deal?) Just curious as to some opinions on this proposal. |
Quote:
Quote:
I think if it is dropped, the NCAA will end up with more IP issues as time goes by and pitching styles change in youth ball and, like the taught IPs, it will climb the ladder into the NCAA and we will experience either a change or another debacle as we saw in the 2010 season. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
do we really want to check what coaches are wearing on their feet??? (item 13)
|
remember, I asked one of your coaches to 'wear his ball cap properly' once. I'd do the same if he should up in cowboy boots ;)
(btw, when are you coming back to Texas....we need ya!!!!!) Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09am. |