Mike Rowe - ASA Rule Suggestions

[oppool]

Why in SP ball do we still use the white ball. It seems to me the Yellow ball is much easier to see off of the bat and if that is needed anywhere it is in the SP world

Also there has been at least 2 or more rule interpetations in the last couple of years that have been on the ASA test and in the case book BUT the ruling is not backed in the rule book. I would like to see these EFFECTS added

i.e. Thrown bat in anger: Dead ball, batter out
co-ed fielding positions: after the play is a coach's
option

If your going to gave umpires a ruling have it stated in the book in black and white to gave us the support

JMOs

Don

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Tap
I think the ASA rule book should clarify the language of the safety base rules -- specifically, when the fielder can use the orange base. In particular, the definition of an "errant throw" needs clarifying. Most of us on this board know what ASA means, but some players and umpires still don't understand. The ASA case book addresses the issues well, but that's not the rule book.

While we're on the subject of the safety base, the rule should also allow the batter-runner to use either base whenever the defense is on the orange, whether or not the defense is using the base legally. Rationale: the batter-runner is wheeling hard to 1st and not locating the ball to determine where the throw is coming from.

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
... snip ... Now I'll go out on a limb with a theory. When ASA rules gods (guys?) gathered in their smoke filled room, did they decided that women would not be able to hit the ball - so they had to restrict the pitcher?

Finally, a national organization that writes rules ONLY for JO age girls (NFHS) keeps the step back in their rules, and (I've been told) will not consider changing to the ASA rule. What do they know that ASA doesn't?

WMB

The reason the pitching back step is not allowed is to constrain the pitcher's advantage but is allowed for men because ASA would never get them to change and would lose them to other orgs.

When comparing any rules to NFHS, we always have to remember they lean strongly toward more players participating rather than pure competition

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by Dakota
While we're on the subject of the safety base, the rule should also allow the batter-runner to use either base whenever the defense is on the orange, whether or not the defense is using the base legally. Rationale: the batter-runner is wheeling hard to 1st and not locating the ball to determine where the throw is coming from. [/B]

I don't agree. The safety base was developed to avoid collisions, so the BR should be required to use the section not used by the defense. True, the BR does not know where the throw is coming from, but should see the fielder. That also would be consistent with runners having responsibility to avoid collisions.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne

I don't agree. The safety base was developed to avoid collisions, so the BR should be required to use the section not used by the defense. True, the BR does not know where the throw is coming from, but should see the fielder. That also would be consistent with runners having responsibility to avoid collisions. [/B]

I'm not sure we are disagreeing here, at least not much. What I am talking about is the BR may have no clue (and should not be required to know) where the throw is coming from. Yet, if the throw is coming from fair territory and the defense is on the orange bag, the BR is still required to use the orange bag, the way the rule is written. I say if the defense is on the orange, then the BR may use the white regardless of where the throw is coming from.

And, the reason for allowing the BR to choose is for a defensive player who is in the middle - the safest path may be to either side.

And, this really doesn't change the collision rule, but it does affect the missed base / appeal rule.

[CecilOne]

1) the BR can run in fair ground and not be out if hit by the throw, if it is from the foul side and the fielder is using the foul part
2) the fielder and BR can use either the fair part or foul part on throws from the foul side or foul ground errant throws.

My suggestion is to require the BR to use the opposite part, instead of saying either.

The BR is only out for mising the foul part when there is a play; if the BR collides with the fielder or there is an appeal for missing the base before the BR returns from an overrun. I assume the original throw to 1st by a fielder is not an "appeal" if the runner has passed the base unless the defense makes a separate action to touch the base or tag the runner after the fact.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne
1) the BR can run in fair ground and not be out if hit by the throw, if it is from the foul side and the fielder is using the foul part

Actually, that is not what the rule says. It says the BR may use fair territory if the throw is coming from foul territory. It says nothing about the position of the defense. That is my beef - how the heck does the BR know where the throw is coming from? The rule does not say the BR may use fair territory if the defense is using the orange base - that is the change I would like to see.

2) the fielder and BR can use either the fair part or foul part on throws from the foul side or foul ground errant throws.

True, but the rule requires the BR to know where the throw is coming from in order to legally use the white base.

My suggestion is to require the BR to use the opposite part, instead of saying either.

So, what do you want the BR to do when the defense is using the white base and stretching across the orange? The BR needs to be able to legally use either in certain situations.

The BR is only out for mising the foul part when there is a play; if the BR collides with the fielder or there is an appeal for missing the base before the BR returns from an overrun. I assume the original throw to 1st by a fielder is not an "appeal" if the runner has passed the base unless the defense makes a separate action to touch the base or tag the runner after the fact.

The affect on the appeal rule is when the BR missed the base. If the BR is required to use the orange base and istead uses the white, it is a missed base that the defense must appeal - merely tagging the base with a late throw is not a recognized appeal - it is just a late throw. If the BR is legally allowed to use either base, there can be no missed base appeal as long as the BR touched one of the bases.

[CecilOne]

Like you said, we basically agree, but there does not seem to be a known solution. Let's be really extreme and say the BR must use the opposite half from the fielder, but is automatically safe if the fielder is on both; unless the BR causes a collision. Then all we have to deal with is two fielders covering on opposite sides of the base .

Too bad all this detailed and practical discussion is not heard by the rules bodies.

[Larry Wolfe]

I agree with Omahablue that for JO, should probably follow the college pitching rule. However, I beleive that the step back does "calm or reduce" some of the funney motions that coaches argue is a crowhop. Also, If JO and college batters are hitting .450,.500,.600 are the pitchers really so dominant?

My understanding of the difference between ASA and Federation is that when ASA changed to the step back 6-7 years ago, Federation followed. Then ASA changed back to both feet in contact and Federation refused to change again and went about improving there own rulemaking bodies instead of just following ASA.

For a rules change, I agree that the double first base rules need clarified in the rule book and umpires need to correctly call the plays regarding the double base. I have learned a great deal off this board about correctly calling plays at the double base, but they should be called consistently overall.

[CecilOne]

I guess we all would give priority to eliminating apparent contradictions. Also, eliminating redundancy and putting some POE's in the actual rules would simplify learning. Some POE (like DP/DEFO) only reference one rule section and are basically rules, not explanations or extra emphasis.

[hukonrt]

I just could not find 8.1.c. Suppose it says something like "When the batter receives a base on balls" or some such. I get kind of anal about rulebooks with misprints.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by hukonrt
I just could not find 8.1.c. Suppose it says something like "When the batter receives a base on balls" or some such. I get kind of anal about rulebooks with misprints.

I agree with sending in all the typos & misprints you know about.

8-1C is merely misnumbered. It is printed as 8-1B.3 (Rule 8-1B has only 2 numbered subparagraphs: 1 and 2. The "first" 8-1B.3 should be 8-1C. The paragraphs 1-3 below that are 8-1C.1-3.)

This kind of error looks like it was most likely a word-processing auto-numbering error. All the text is there, though.

[David Ruest]

I disagree with your statement in #3 BOO. NFHS does not wipe out any outs made on the play in a BOO situation. Any outs made on the play, stand. As well as the proper batter being called out. Two for the price of one!

[scottk_61]

Originally posted by oppool
Why in SP ball do we still use the white ball. It seems to me the Yellow ball is much easier to see off of the bat and if that is needed anywhere it is in the SP world

Don

The optic yellow is allowed, we use it all the time locally and at the current SP Nationals, it is supposed to be supplied, especially for the JOs.
Maybe someone near you isn't allowing the optic yellow but it isn't ASA

[CecilOne]

From NFHS:

In another editorial change, Rule 8-9-2 now states that the pitcher or catcher must bat and reach base legally in order to be eligible for a courtesy runner.