Mike Rowe - ASA Rule Suggestions

[WestMichBlue]

"I am beginning to put together requests for possible changes to ASA rules for submission this fall.

In your post below you started with this statement, but then directed the responses to a Co-ed issue. I'd like to open it up to any issues.

My major issue with ASA is the "about to receive a thrown ball" portion of obstruction (1.Obstruction.B.3, and 8.5.B). Now personally, I believe that most umps can fairly judge "about to receive," but ASA screwed it up with POE 35 in which they tried to replace "judgment" with a scientific fact "ball is closer than runner." Now we both know that the ball travels faster than the runner, and thus the defender has the ball before before the runner is there; in effect negating the "about to receive" clause.

Let's make it easy and go to the International rule that says you must have the ball (period) or you are guilty of obstruction.

We make this change and umpires will be making zillions of obstruction calls. And coaches and players will have to change. This change will force players to start taking the throws alongside the base or base path, then turn and sweep tag the runners. This will remove a lot of contact from the game and eliminate a dangerous trend of coaches teaching obstruction.

That is the major issue with me. There are a couple others that may make sense to the whole body of ASA softball, but I feel are unfair to JO.

1. Unreported substitute is disqualified. These kids come to play the game; the only reason they should be disqualified is for un-safe or un-sportsmanship acts for which they are directly responsible. So a kid sits an entire game because her coach forgot to tell the umpire of the substitution. In NFHS an unreported substitute is legal as soon as the ball is put into play.

2. I’m not sure that illegal substitutes should always be disqualified. Coach sends Mary into run for catcher in the 1st inning; coach sends Mary into run for pitcher in the 4th inning. Mary is kicked out of the game!

3. BOO – the batter who failed to bat is called out, and if the improper batter makes an out, it stands. “Outie” umpires love this, but let’s be fair. Either the batter who did not bat is out, or the batter that did bat is out. One or the other, but not both! NFSH wipes out the out (or hits) of the improper batter and records one out on the batter that did not bat.

4. Pitching – I am sure this is ingrained in ASA culture, but I have never understood why ASA allows it’s men and JO boys to step back, but not its women and JO girls. Other fastpitch programs (NFHS, USSSA, PONY) allow the step; why does ASA force this restriction only on its female pitchers?

Well, that’s my wish list. (Which I will also submit to the Michigan UIC.) Anyone want to add to my list. Or disagree.

WMB

[Edited by WestMichBlue on Jul 29th, 2003 at 10:57 PM]

[CecilOne]

I was taught that the basis for judging the "about to receive" is the ball is closer, so POE 35 is just cofirmation and actually clearer than all the ball in the infield, ball is thrown, etc. myths. It is also more protective than the ISF version.

Unfortunately, many rules exist to punish those who cheat rather than the idyllic conditions you express (and I also usually experience). That is the problem with the effects of BOO and illegal sub.

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 and are less likely to DQ. Also, DQ can lead to players leaving the playing area and high schools are more safety and control (and lawsuit) conscious.

[Dakota]

Good list for provoking thought, WMB!

Here are my opinions...

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
My major issue with ASA is the "about to receive a thrown ball" portion of obstruction (1.Obstruction.B.3, and 8.5.B). Now personally, I believe that most umps can fairly judge "about to receive," but ASA screwed it up with POE 35 in which they tried to replace "judgment" with a scientific fact "ball is closer than runner." Now we both know that the ball travels faster than the runner, and thus the defender has the ball before before the runner is there; in effect negating the "about to receive" clause.

If you assume the defender catches the ball, you are correct. However, "about to receive" says nothing about whether the reception, in fact, ever took place. The ASA rule provides protection to a defender who has muffed the catch - the defender cannot be charged with obstruction while bobbling the ball, for example. My biggest issue with the obstruction rule is not the rule per se, but the lack of enforcement each time, every time, leading to coached obstruction as a defensive technique. It's not a rule issue, but a training of and evaluation of umpires issue.

This situation you posted on eteamz, and is a good example of obstruction that would never be called (well, close enough to never):

ASA, Women's FP. Runner coming home, ball coming home, catcher set up in front of plate. Runner executes a wide slide and reaches back with hand to touch plate. (You probably saw this in the NCAA World Series this summer.) Catcher receives ball, spins, and tags runner in the middle of the back just before left hand comes down to touch plate.

In addition to lack of enforcement, there is the problem of interpretation of "about to receive" meaning anything from "ball on the way" to "set up in order to receive," as Cecil said - myths. But, making the call, in general, is a much bigger issue, IMO.

We make this change and umpires will be making zillions of obstruction calls. And coaches and players will have to change. This change will force players to start taking the throws alongside the base or base path, then turn and sweep tag the runners. This will remove a lot of contact from the game and eliminate a dangerous trend of coaches teaching obstruction.

Would that it were true - won't happen by making a rule change, IMO.

1. Unreported substitute is disqualified. These kids come to play the game; the only reason they should be disqualified is for un-safe or un-sportsmanship acts for which they are directly responsible. So a kid sits an entire game because her coach forgot to tell the umpire of the substitution. In NFHS an unreported substitute is legal as soon as the ball is put into play.

Remember - the rule book only applies to ASA Championship Play. Local leagues can, and do, make changes to the substitution rules for just such objectives as you mention. That is the place for this, IMO - local rules. Teams in Championship Play should watch their P's and Q's wrt line up and sub rules.

2. I’m not sure that illegal substitutes should always be disqualified. Coach sends Mary into run for catcher in the 1st inning; coach sends Mary into run for pitcher in the 4th inning. Mary is kicked out of the game!

First, the umpire should not allow this to happen - this is a courtesy runner being visibly sent it - the umpire should check the lineup card and say, "Coach, you can't do that." Second, see #1.

3. BOO – the batter who failed to bat is called out, and if the improper batter makes an out, it stands. “Outie” umpires love this, but let’s be fair. Either the batter who did not bat is out, or the batter that did bat is out. One or the other, but not both! NFSH wipes out the out (or hits) of the improper batter and records one out on the batter that did not bat.

I like ASA's rule better than NFHS, and it has nothing to do with "umpires like outs!" It has to do with applying a penalty that will put a limit on the shenanigans. Critical situation, one out, runner on base - Carol Cementbat is due up, and right behind her is Sally Slugger. CC is a sure out anyway against Helen Highheat pitching, so why not put SS in to bat and take a chance the opposing coach doesn't notice?

4. Pitching – I am sure this is ingrained in ASA culture, but I have never understood why ASA allows it’s men and JO boys to step back, but not its women and JO girls. Other fastpitch programs (NFHS, USSSA, PONY) allow the step; why does ASA force this restriction only on its female pitchers?

The JO game is already pitcher dominated. If ASA is going to muck with the pitching mechanics rules, I'd rather they take a look at what is de facto legal already wrt leaping and crow hopping, and decide whether to tighten up the rule & get it stopped, or loosen up the rule to restore integrity to the pitching rules.

[Edited by Dakota on Jul 30th, 2003 at 10:26 AM]

[shipwreck]

WestMichBlue, I believe you are wrong about NFHS unreported sub. In NFHS the sub NEEDS to report to the PU. If they don't, the umpire shall issue a team warning to the coach and the next offender on that team shall be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game. In a way it may be more restrictive than ASA since I in NFHS the unreported sub can be caught by the umpire and doesn't need to be brought to our attention by the offended team. In ASA they don't get a warning but it must be protested by the offended team. Dave

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue

My major issue with ASA is the "about to receive a thrown ball" portion of obstruction (1.Obstruction.B.3, and 8.5.B). Now personally, I believe that most umps can fairly judge "about to receive," but ASA screwed it up with POE 35 in which they tried to replace "judgment" with a scientific fact "ball is closer than runner." Now we both know that the ball travels faster than the runner, and thus the defender has the ball before before the runner is there; in effect negating the "about to receive" clause.

Let's make it easy and go to the International rule that says you must have the ball (period) or you are guilty of obstruction.

That was defeated last year, but I would think there will be another attempt made this November.

1. Unreported substitute is disqualified. These kids come to play the game; the only reason they should be disqualified is for un-safe or un-sportsmanship acts for which they are directly responsible. So a kid sits an entire game because her coach forgot to tell the umpire of the substitution. In NFHS an unreported substitute is legal as soon as the ball is put into play.

2. I’m not sure that illegal substitutes should always be disqualified. Coach sends Mary into run for catcher in the 1st inning; coach sends Mary into run for pitcher in the 4th inning. Mary is kicked out of the game!

These are rules for competitive ball, not recreational, everybody plays ball. There must be some penalty and you can't throw out the coaches or you are inviting chaos to the game.

3. BOO – the batter who failed to bat is called out, and if the improper batter makes an out, it stands. “Outie” umpires love this, but let’s be fair. Either the batter who did not bat is out, or the batter that did bat is out. One or the other, but not both! NFSH wipes out the out (or hits) of the improper batter and records one out on the batter that did not bat.

ASA's rule makes the most sense. Why would you deny the defense an out or two they just gained because the opposition cannot follow a simple batting order? If you changed it, the offense would be openly reporting themselves in violation to avoid the additional outs.

4. Pitching – I am sure this is ingrained in ASA culture, but I have never understood why ASA allows it’s men and JO boys to step back, but not its women and JO girls. Other fastpitch programs (NFHS, USSSA, PONY) allow the step; why does ASA force this restriction only on its female pitchers?

I will cede to the FP experts on the board on this issue. If I had my druthers, I'd move the pitcher's plate back to 46-48' and the only underhanded illegal pitch would be starting while not in contact with the plate. But, as you all know, that will never happen.

[Skahtboi]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

I will cede to the FP experts on the board on this issue. If I had my druthers, I'd move the pitcher's plate back to 46-48' and the only underhanded illegal pitch would be starting while not in contact with the plate. But, as you all know, that will never happen.

USSSA and NFHS both allow the pitcher the step backwards.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
If I had my druthers, I'd move the pitcher's plate back to 46-48' and the only underhanded illegal pitch would be starting while not in contact with the plate. But, as you all know, that will never happen.

And a not insignificant reason - it would take a big bite out of the business of all those pitching coaches! (Actually, it would just allow them to spend more time on other things, but that doesn't have the same "sound bite" quality!)

[Edited by Dakota on Jul 30th, 2003 at 12:11 PM]

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Skahtboi
USSSA and NFHS both allow the pitcher the step backwards.

Other than the "but they allow it" argument, what argument is there in support of giving the pitchers more advantage? Perhaps the reverse argument should be made for utrip and fed to change?

[WestMichBlue]

"Other than the "but they allow it" argument, what argument is there in support of giving the pitchers more advantage?"

But "they" (ASA) allow it inside their own rules - for men and JO boys.

"Perhaps the reverse argument should be made for utrip and fed to change?"

Perhaps the reverse argument should be made for ASA to change the mens game?

I have no idea when ASA modified it's FP rules for women, but I assume that it was a modification to existing men's FP rules. Men's pitching rules appear to be an adaption of Baseball rules as required to modify for underhand throwing.

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

[Dakota]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
"Other than the "but they allow it" argument, what argument is there in support of giving the pitchers more advantage?"

But "they" (ASA) allow it inside their own rules - for men and JO boys.

"Perhaps the reverse argument should be made for utrip and fed to change?"

Perhaps the reverse argument should be made for ASA to change the mens game?

I have no idea when ASA modified it's FP rules for women, but I assume that it was a modification to existing men's FP rules. Men's pitching rules appear to be an adaption of Baseball rules as required to modify for underhand throwing.

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?

These are just other variations on "they do it" - in this case the "they" being males. What is the positive argument in favor of ASA changing the rule

Finally, a national organization that writes rules ONLY for JO age girls (NFHS) ...

Hmmmm...

NFHS Softball 2003 Rules Book, Rule 1-2 Art. 1 a. 2. Mandated distances: between the rear tip of home plate and the front edge of the pitcher's plate shall be 40 feet for female fast pitch softball and 46 feet for male fast pitch softball.

What do they know that ASA doesn't?

Title IX and the other gender equity issues public schools have to deal with.

[omaha blue]

Actually if you consider where these girls that pitch JO are trying to get to eventually, college ball, you should look at what the NCAA allows, which is no step back.

Now I know NCAA adapted alot of their rules from ASA, but with that as a guideline, I would not want to see ASA make a change in this area.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
"Other than the "but they allow it" argument, what argument is there in support of giving the pitchers more advantage?"

But "they" (ASA) allow it inside their own rules - for men and JO boys.

"Perhaps the reverse argument should be made for utrip and fed to change?"

Perhaps the reverse argument should be made for ASA to change the mens game?

I have no idea when ASA modified it's FP rules for women, but I assume that it was a modification to existing men's FP rules. Men's pitching rules appear to be an adaption of Baseball rules as required to modify for underhand throwing.

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

As noted, other than 10U & 12U, the male pitchers are throwing from an extra 6' than the female pitchers. NFHS still has too much male influence in their rules-making standards.

And does NFHS & USSSA allow an actual step or just permit the non-pivot foot to not be in contact with the plate?

But when it all comes down to it, if a girl cannot pitch in ASA, the chances of pitching in the NCAA may not be that great.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
And does NFHS & USSSA allow an actual step or just permit the non-pivot foot to not be in contact with the plate?

Don't know about utrip, but fed does not allow a backward step once the hands have come together.

The pitcher may start with her non-pivot foot on or behind the plate.

Any backward step of the non-pivot foot must be started before bringing the hands together but may finish after.

[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.

Also, the ASA clinic guide says that the black of the plate (if visible due to the plate not being installed properly or for other reasons) should be treated as part of the plate for all offensive and defensive purposes. The rule book should echo that same concept.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

I agree and will see what I can do about it.

Also, the ASA clinic guide says that the black of the plate (if visible due to the plate not being installed properly or for other reasons) should be treated as part of the plate for all offensive and defensive purposes. The rule book should echo that same concept.

As I have explained before, I doubt this is going to happen in the rules because not all home bases are constructed or installed in the same or equitable fashion.

If your State/Metro UICs do their job, this is no big deal.