Possible Fed Rule Changes for 2015.

[chapmaja]

Here are some of the possible Fed rule changes for next year (per a survey that has been sent out).

Which would you be in favor of and why?

1. The pitcher starting the pitching motion with both feet on the pitcher’s plate.

2. Defining electronic device.

3. Clarifying obstruction.

4. Adding a 10th player to replace the DP/Flex rules for fast pitch.

5. Eliminating the need for the umpire to check equipment prior to the start of the game.

6. Requiring a double first base for fast pitch.

7. Clarifying illegal pitches.

8. Clarifying interference by the batter-runner.

9. Allowing runner to touch a missed base after the ball is thrown out of play.

10. Allowing an intentional walk in fast pitch.

11. Moving “a run ahead” rule from state adoption to a national rule.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Here are some of the possible Fed rule changes for next year (per a survey that has been sent out).

Which would you be in favor of and why?

1. The pitcher starting the pitching motion with both feet on the pitcher’s plate.

I think the rules need to be consistent between all levels of softball with the pitching rules, so if this would make it consistent with other rule codes then yes.

2. Defining electronic device.

Do we really need to clarify what an electronic device is? The only thing I think needs to be addressed is one specific aspect of the rules regarding the use of electronic devices. An electronic scorebook (scorebook only) may be used by the umpire to review issues such as an incorrect batter or score issue. Otherwise, we really don't need help defining an electronic devise.

3. Clarifying obstruction.

Why would we need this clarified? The only reason I can see for clarifying it would be too often umpires are not calling obstruction when it occurs. Maybe obstruction as a POE, but we shouldn't need clarification of what obstruction is.

4. Adding a 10th player to replace the DP/Flex rules for fast pitch.

This question leaves much to be determined. Are we saying 10 players on both offense and defense? If that's what this is asking, then absolutely not. If it is asking to bat 10, but only play 9 on defense, I can see both sides of this issue. I would say don't change it because the DP/Flex rule is designed to allow a team to "hide" a weak batter. The only change I would say yes to is if the team simply went to a Designated Hitter rule and allow the DH to bat for any player in the field, which would basically be what the current DP Flex is anyway.

5. Eliminating the need for the umpire to check equipment prior to the start of the game.

Absolutely. IIRC baseball has already done this. This puts total and complete responsibility on the team to be properly and legally equipped with the umpires simply addressing the situation if violations occur. From a legal standpoint I'm not sure how it would affect umpires though, should illegal equipment be used and someone be injured as a result.

6. Requiring a double first base for fast pitch.


My opinion, ABSOLUTELY. We should have the double first base to at least minimize the risk somewhat of collisions at first base which are preventable.

7. Clarifying illegal pitches.

This would depend in part of #1. I think if the changes are made to the allowed pitching position, then yes, clarification should be made because the rules for pitchers have changed. No change like #1, then a POE should be made because I do see a lot of illegal pitches not getting called, mainly as it related to the timing aspects and the hands together and separated.

8. Clarifying interference by the batter-runner.


This is another one I have to ask myself why the issue would be brought up in the first place. Unless the rules change on batter-runner interference, why would we need to clarify anything.


9. Allowing runner to touch a missed base after the ball is thrown out of play.

I am in favor of this to an extent. Should the ball go out of play, and the runner immediately begin a return to retouch a missed base, then yes it should be allowed. Any rule change like this should have a timing element. We should not have a rule that would allow the coach to come out to appeal (or a player appeal) and then the runner says she needs to go back and retouch a missed base. That is my concern with the way I read #9.

10. Allowing an intentional walk in fast pitch.

I don't agree with this idea. I understand the speed of the game issue, but I think this change does more harm than good. Since we allow stealing as soon as the ball is released by the pitcher, you now penalize the offense by not requiring the pitcher to pitch to batters. Depending on the base runner on base, you could have a runner capable of getting on first, and stealing second and third bases during play even if the defense wants to walk the batter. (which would keep the team out of a Double Play of infield fly situation)

11. Moving “a run ahead” rule from state adoption to a national rule.
Yes, I do favor a national adoption of a run ahead rule, with the state option to make it stricter at sub-varsity levels. The run ahead rule we use in Michigan is 15 after 3, 10 after 5, however one conference has been granted approval to use 8 after 5 for sub-varsity contests.

Answers within Quotes

[IRISHMAFIA]

1. The pitcher starting the pitching motion with both feet on the pitcher’s plate.

No


2. Defining electronic device.

No, interpretation should be enough

3. Clarifying obstruction.

No, interpretation should be enough

4. Adding a 10th player to replace the DP/Flex rules for fast pitch.

No

5. Eliminating the need for the umpire to check equipment prior to the start of the game.



No

6. Requiring a double first base for fast pitch.

Yes

7. Clarifying illegal pitches.

No, interpretation should be enough

8. Clarifying interference by the batter-runner.

No, interpretation should be enough

9. Allowing runner to touch a missed base after the ball is thrown out of play.

Yes

10. Allowing an intentional walk in fast pitch.

There already is an intentional walk in FP

11. Moving “a run ahead” rule from state adoption to a national rule.

In the long run, all NFHS are "state adoption" rules

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

1. The pitcher starting the pitching motion with both feet on the pitcher’s plate.

No



10. Allowing an intentional walk in fast pitch.

There already is an intentional walk in FP

What they are saying is an Intentional walk with no pitches thrown like Slow Pitch and Baseball

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

1. The pitcher starting the pitching motion with both feet on the pitcher’s plate.

No

I'm surprised by your answer on this. Is this because you generally don't favor pitching rules or is there something you prefer about the NFHS rule?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...6. Requiring a double first base for fast pitch.

Yes

And I'm surprised at your answer to this.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

...
1. The pitcher starting the pitching motion with both feet on the pitcher’s plate.

Yes, assuming this means eliminating the back step altogether. Otherwise, *yawn*.

2. Defining electronic device.

Only if there are some electronic devices (using the common definition) that are excluded from the rules regulating electronic devices.

3. Clarifying obstruction.

Belongs in umpire training. The rule itself is fine as is.

4. Adding a 10th player to replace the DP/Flex rules for fast pitch.

Assuming this means 10 batters & play defense with any 9 of the 10? Fine by me. Not needed, but essentially harmless, IMO.

5. Eliminating the need for the umpire to check equipment prior to the start of the game.

Yes. Make the use of illegal equipment solely and completely on the coach & admin, instead of a cat and mouse game with the umpires. Make the violation a protest, with a forfeit being the result of winning the protest. (OK, not really thought through... but I am sick of being the bat police.)

6. Requiring a double first base for fast pitch.

Don't care.

7. Clarifying illegal pitches.

See the answer to #3. If they are proposing a radical simplification of the pitching rule, I'd be for that. But, more "clarification" is pointless.

8. Clarifying interference by the batter-runner.

See #3.

9. Allowing runner to touch a missed base after the ball is thrown out of play.

Yes.

10. Allowing an intentional walk in fast pitch.

If this means no pitches have to be thrown? No. The battery should have to play their positions like any other defensive player.

11. Moving “a run ahead” rule from state adoption to a national rule.

Why? To force this on states that choose to not adopt it? Silly.

And, I have to type something outside the quote due to the silly forum rules.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm surprised by your answer on this. Is this because you generally don't favor pitching rules or is there something you prefer about the NFHS rule?

It is because of the reason it is not required now. In spite of what some people see as great softball, there are many HS teams which just do not have pitchers, let along quality pitchers.

Originally Posted by Dakota

And I'm surprised at your answer to this.

Well, no one has the courage to hold coaches and players accountable to learn and play the game properly. The rules at all levels have been massaged to allow for the dummying down of what was once a helluva game with top athletes that went out and learned to play the game, not go through the motions and have the game come to them. So, if they aren't going to learn how to play the game properly, I guess this is the next best thing.

Now, if they can just convince the loafers in OKC to massage the rules and interpretations to make the damn thing effective.

[IRISHMAFIA]

11. Moving “a run ahead” rule from state adoption to a national rule.

Why? To force this on states that choose to not adopt it? Silly.

States are not forced to do anything.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

States are not forced to do anything.

Hence, silly.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Here are some of the possible Fed rule changes for next year (per a survey that has been sent out).

Which would you be in favor of and why?

1. The pitcher starting the pitching motion with both feet on the pitcher’s plate.
No

2. Defining electronic device.
maybe, after reviewing a proposed definition

3. Clarifying obstruction.
We've been trying to do that for years for some people, the rest of us do not need it.

4. Adding a 10th player to replace the DP/Flex rules for fast pitch.
NO

5. Eliminating the need for the umpire to check equipment prior to the start of the game.
It is a nuisance, but enough illegals how up to have value .

6. Requiring a double first base for fast pitch.
OK

7. Clarifying illegal pitches.
Needs explanation, else see #2

8. Clarifying interference by the batter-runner.
Yes

9. Allowing runner to touch a missed base after the ball is thrown out of play.
OK

10. Allowing an intentional walk in fast pitch.
Without pitches - No

11. Moving “a run ahead” rule from state adoption to a national rule.
No
One reason - different climates affect the value of speedup rules.

Mine - change the pitcher simulating a signal to a perceptible pause.

[Tru_in_Blu]

I had to look up the double-first base suggestion. In NH, we use the double-base.

1.2.1 Note "By state association adoption, a double first base is permitted."

I did a relocated game that was played on a college field, which of course did not have a double base. One of the coaches moaned and whined and carried on about legal liabilities.

We played the game (without anybody being killed at 1B) and then reported it to our higher ups.

Give the wording, and unless there is something different in NH amended rules, the double-base is "permitted", not required.

I'll have to check further.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I did a relocated game that was played on a college field, which of course did not have a double base. One of the coaches moaned and whined and carried on about legal liabilities.

This is the type of guy that I would tell him if he were worried about the liabilities, he was more than welcome to refuse to play and take his team home.

[3afan]

5 - YES! checking bats is dumb!

I'd like to see the penalty for an IP be reduced to just a ball on the batter. More umps would actually call it then.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by 3afan

5 - YES! checking bats is dumb!

I'd like to see the penalty for an IP be reduced to just a ball on the batter. More umps would actually call it then.

As a former pitcher, I'd love this. I could then choose when to cheat and might often-times never be called on it. With such a mild penalty, it would be well worth the gamble.