Is it time to change the field in FP?

[IRISHMAFIA]

I set myself up to be clobberred by some of the FP folks over on discussfastpitch.com. I wasn't disappointed as you would think I suggested sacrificing their first born.

Any opinions from the umpire's side?

The bases have been 60' in distance for what seems to be forever, at least 75 years that I can document.

However, with the hi-tech, powerful bats and the hard and lively anything-but-soft balls combined with the always increasing athleticism and finely-honed skills of today's player, is it time to go to a 65' base distance?

There really is no argument that the equipment has surpassed the fields as even the NCAA was almost embarassed into changing the minimum distance of outfield fence, but still didn't take it as far as they should because they like offense and home runs. The pitching distance for the older teen and adult players has been moved back. So, why not the bases?

Having gone through this before in the SP game, I know there will be the traditionalists (which only think they have tradition on their side ) will tell you not to mess with the game and that it is too much to ask the players to do. However, when it comes down to it, what player today does not cover 5' in just over a stride, if it takes that much?

The corners wouldn't have to get as close to the batter when crashing the plate, so there is a safety factor here and that extra stride brings a little more defense into the game and a 5-4-3 deuce may not be as rare or spectacular a play as it can be in some games now. If anything, it may give an infielder a better chance to get a runner out on a ball where a step to the side may be necessary to field it.

Much of the todo about moving the pitcher's plate back was to bring more offense to the game by giving the batter a better chance to put the ball into play. Well, it seems that worked out fine. Is it now time for the quid pro quo to the defense? The batters are now putting more balls into play, maybe it is now time to give the defense a chance to catch up.

[Andy]

I was wondering when you might bring this over here......

I think the bases are just fine where they are at. Moving the pitchers back was done because pitching was too dominant (in theory). Now that the pitchers have been moved back at the higher levels, it has put some more offense in the game. I think that if you move the bases back five feet, you negate the 43 foot pitching distance and we are right back where we were a few years ago with a pitching/defense dominated game that is "boring" to the casual fan. I also tend to agree with some of the responses on the other forum that it would limit the effectiveness of the short game.

[RKBUmp]

My daughters team played a game at gold nationals a few years ago on one of the outlying fields where the bases had accidentally been set at 65'. No one noticed until the next teams where about to start. As Andy has said, it just killed the short game. Slappers who would normally have been safe by a step were being thrown out by 1/2 step. What ever gains the offense got with moving the pitcher back to 43 would be offset by the added length of the bases.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

My daughters team played a game at gold nationals a few years ago on one of the outlying fields where the bases had accidentally been set at 65'. No one noticed until the next teams where about to start. As Andy has said, it just killed the short game. Slappers who would normally have been safe by a step were being thrown out by 1/2 step. What ever gains the offense got with moving the pitcher back to 43 would be offset by the added length of the bases.

He would know...his daughter is FAST!

[NCASAUmp]

If the final scores of fast pitch were looking more like slow pitch scores, I would say yes. However, since that's clearly not the case, so I don't think one could make the argument that the defense really needs more help.

And if the equipment's performance is the rationale behind this logic, then I'd like to see them explain why we still see F3 and F5 play so close up the line.

Not to mention all of the studies that have been done in SP that say that giving the pitcher an extra 6 feet from the original distance of 50' doesn't really give them that much more reaction time to a ball that, in all honesty, is hit much harder and faster than what you typically find in the FP game. Sure, there are plenty of female sluggers out there, but most HRs hit in the various levels of FP would fall well short of a 300' fence.

Keep the bases at 60' for now. I see no compelling need for the change.

[SNIPERBBB]

The offense needs all the help it can get most days unless you got pitchers that think they are playing slowpitch instead of fastpitch.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

My daughters team played a game at gold nationals a few years ago on one of the outlying fields where the bases had accidentally been set at 65'. No one noticed until the next teams where about to start. As Andy has said, it just killed the short game. Slappers who would normally have been safe by a step were being thrown out by 1/2 step. What ever gains the offense got with moving the pitcher back to 43 would be offset by the added length of the bases.

See, this is where I do not necessarily agree. With the pitchers at 40', the pitchers were dominant and kept the ball out of play. Now, at least, the ball has been put into play forcing the defense to actually make the play.

The short game was developed as a response to the dominating pitcher. Since moving the PP back, we are now seeing more HR (fences different subject), line drives and ground base hits.

And I'm not saying that is bad, just that it might be time to take the next step and give the defense a chance to actually make some plays. These girls are more athletic and the equipment much more advantageous to the offense than ever before.

This has been done a couple times in SP and it wasn't just because there was room. Just as the quality of the pitcher's ability outgrew the pitching distance, I believe the players with the equipment have done the same with the bases.

And because there is an additional 625 sq ft for the infielders to cover, I don't believe the "short" game will suffer as much as many believe. For that matter, I believe it may actually help the short game.

Okay, I'll shut up now.

[Andy]

Mike - I guess you are pretty serious about this...

When you first put it on the other forum, I couldn't tell if you were serious or just "stirring the pot" a bit....

(I suppose if you were just "stirring the pot", you would have put it on HeyBucket! )

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

Mike - I guess you are pretty serious about this...

When you first put it on the other forum, I couldn't tell if you were serious or just "stirring the pot" a bit....

(I suppose if you were just "stirring the pot", you would have put it on HeyBucket! )

I'm not serious to the point of a major change is coming, but I am surprised (not your home town) at the lack of vision. Not that they disagree so much, that's fine, but the "don't have to consider it, I'm against it" manner.

As I had stated, was not the reason the PP went to 43' to adjust for the skills of the pitcher and the effect they had on the overall game? Was not the reason the fences were moved back because of the effect the equipment and skills had on the game? Just curious as to why those "had to happen", but moving the bases in FP is so easily dismissed.

What do you think is going to happen when someone tries to push the 52/300 into the FP game?

[Skahtboi]

Personally, I would be willing to see an experiment with the bases further back to see how it impacts the game. It seems that there has been trending to more offense lately in the sport. At least, that is how it seems to me.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

See, this is where I do not necessarily agree. With the pitchers at 40', the pitchers were dominant and kept the ball out of play. Now, at least, the ball has been put into play forcing the defense to actually make the play.

The short game was developed as a response to the dominating pitcher. Since moving the PP back, we are now seeing more HR (fences different subject), line drives and ground base hits.

And I'm not saying that is bad, just that it might be time to take the next step and give the defense a chance to actually make some plays. These girls are more athletic and the equipment much more advantageous to the offense than ever before.

This has been done a couple times in SP and it wasn't just because there was room. Just as the quality of the pitcher's ability outgrew the pitching distance, I believe the players with the equipment have done the same with the bases.

And because there is an additional 625 sq ft for the infielders to cover, I don't believe the "short" game will suffer as much as many believe. For that matter, I believe it may actually help the short game.

I think we should move the bases out further to make the calls easier for the umpires and because I love 10 inning scoreless ties.

I guess it does not matter from an umpiring point of view, we still call what happens, 60 ft or 65 ft, 38 ft or 40 ft or 43 ft, new bats or old bats, new game balls or old game balls (white or yellow), any rule book, lighted or unlighted fields, fences or imaginary lines, etc.

I do think some umps would not make it inside in time at 65 ft (those barely doing it now); and of course many fields would not bother to expand the skin; but I could live with it. Just think, more infield flies.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, I'll shut up now.

Yeah, sure.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I do think some umps would not make it inside in time at 65 ft (those barely doing it now)

How do you figure that?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

How do you figure that?

Ok, that should have had it's own or a or just a .