Proposed ASA Rule & Code Changes Available

[IRISHMAFIA]

Click here.

[AtlUmpSteve]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

Seems a lot of "because" exceptions this year. Beside the one above, the reason for changing the batter's box is equally absurd.

[BretMan]

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?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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?

Agreed. How about making sure umpires do their jobs instead? If we all enforce that rule, it won't be a surprise for the players.

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?"

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."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

And with respect to 19 and 22, if they do reduce the number of HRs to 0, I predict Class E completely going away.

And this would be bad how?

#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."

Yep, can see that happening.

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

And with respect to 19 and 22, if they do reduce the number of HRs to 0, I predict Class E completely going away.

utrip E is 0 HR and instead of a DBO, its an offensive ejection
utrip D is 0 HR and its a DBO

for utrip tournies, there are probably more E teams than the other divisions combined, but thats mainly due to the way they reward team points for their WS. E teams playing in a D tourny get double points and there are probably 10 D/E tournies for every C tourny, so its much easier to make the WS playing E. its actually a pretty ingenious $$ making strategy for utrip.

[3afan]

do we really want to check what coaches are wearing on their feet??? (item 13)

[okla21fan]

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!!!!!)

Originally Posted by 3afan

do we really want to check what coaches are wearing on their feet??? (item 13)

[3afan]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

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!!!!!)

I'm back in January, can't wait

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by 3afan

do we really want to check what coaches are wearing on their feet??? (item 13)

I think this issue is for them to have shoes, not flip-flops, sandals or whatever. BTW, boots are not a problem, most comfortable footwear in the world

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I think this issue is for them to have shoes, not flip-flops, sandals or whatever. ...

Why does anyone care?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Why does anyone care?

I think the point is simple. How is wearing flip-flops considered being "properly attired?" It doesn't befit a coach of the game.