ASA 2012 Proposed Rule Changes

[KevinC]

I found this link on another forum and I'm curious to find out what others think about these proposed rule changes.

Item #25: Runners are no longer awarded a base on an illegal pitch. A ball is is still awarded to the batter.

I really hope this one passes. Awarding the baserunners a base is too severe a penalty IMO.​

Item #26: Women's and JO fastpitch rules will match Men's fastpitch.

I never understood the rationale for having different pitching rules for women and men.​

Item #34: Infield fly rule applies even if the umpire does not call it during the play.

I think this one could be trouble. Currently the umpire has to decide while the ball is in the air if it could be caught "with ordinary effort". Seems to me it's going to be tough for the umpire to say that it could have been caught with ordinary effort, even though it wasn't caught, after he didn't call infield fly in the first place. But the offensive coach is going to be screaming for the ump to do just that.​

Does anyone know how this process works? Have these changes been proposed in the past and been voted down? Is it worth my time to email my local ASA commissioners to let them know my opinion as a parent and coach?

 

[MTR]

I found this link on another forum and I'm curious to find out what others think about these proposed rule changes.


Item #26: Women's and JO fastpitch rules will match Men's fastpitch.

I never understood the rationale for having different pitching rules for women and men.​

According to an NCAA contact when asked about this possibility, SHE stated that she doesn't believe the NCAA would change this rule until there was a study of how allowing a leap would affect the female pitcher physically since her anatomy is different. Her reasoning, not mine

Item #34: Infield fly rule applies even if the umpire does not call it during the play.

I think this one could be trouble. Currently the umpire has to decide while the ball is in the air if it could be caught "with ordinary effort". Seems to me it's going to be tough for the umpire to say that it could have been caught with ordinary effort, even though it wasn't caught, after he didn't call infield fly in the first place. But the offensive coach is going to be screaming for the ump to do just that.​

This is not a problem. This is simply putting words to what is already happening and has been for decades. Apparently, someone, somewhere thought it was necessary to confirm a rule is applicable when in effect.

Does anyone know how this process works? Have these changes been proposed in the past and been voted down? Is it worth my time to email my local ASA commissioners to let them know my opinion as a parent and coach?

Some of them have, some not, some get tweaked in committee. If you want to call your commissioner, it wouldn't hurt, but don't expect that because you or a handful of people don't like something it will not pass. There are more to rules and applications than words in a book, all of which are subject to nearly a week of debate in numerous committees.

 

[nanotech14]

The pitching rule change,I would think IMO,cause problems,you can leap in ASA,but can't in NSA,USSSA,and other abc org.What is a PC going to teach.

 

[KevinC]

According to an NCAA contact when asked about this possibility, SHE stated that she doesn't believe the NCAA would change this rule until there was a study of how allowing a leap would affect the female pitcher physically since her anatomy is different. Her reasoning, not mine

The pitching rule change,I would think IMO,cause problems,you can leap in ASA,but can't in NSA,USSSA,and other abc org.What is a PC going to teach.

Good points maybe the NCAA needs to change first and then it can trickle down to the other associations.

 

[Momo'sDad]

Though I appreciated their concern for the integrity of the game, I wasn't exactly impressed with the coaches who wanted IPs called in last weekend's 10u game. But, I guess that's a possibility you've got to deal with whenever you're keeping score.

 

[GI Tom]

This is not a problem. This is simply putting words to what is already happening and has been for decades. Apparently, someone, somewhere thought it was necessary to confirm a rule is applicable when in effect.

Scenerio:

Runners on 1B and 2B, 0 Outs. Pop fly in the infield to (insert player), nothing said by me as BU, ball drops, not intentionally, just a straight up error. Would runners now have to decide if the rule should have been in effect? As most know, they are still allowed to advance at their own liability in that case, so there is no unscrambling that egg the way I see it.

Seems to me it would be a guessing game by offense to determine if umpire thinks its in effect or not.

I'm not a fan of this proposed rule change at all unless someone can point out something I'm missing.

I understand (or at least I think I do) why they are proposing the change, but I think it creates a conundrum. To me, the lesser of the two evils is to keep it the way it is. That is my opinion only.

 

[Ajaywill]

Scenerio:

Runners on 1B and 2B, 0 Outs. Pop fly in the infield to (insert player), nothing said by me as BU, ball drops, not intentionally, just a straight up error. Would runners now have to decide if the rule should have been in effect? As most know, they are still allowed to advance at their own liability in that case, so there is no unscrambling that egg the way I see it.

Seems to me it would be a guessing game by offense to determine if umpire thinks its in effect or not.

I'm not a fan of this proposed rule change at all unless someone can point out something I'm missing.

I understand (or at least I think I do) why they are proposing the change, but I think it creates a conundrum. To me, the lesser of the two evils is to keep it the way it is. That is my opinion only.

As MTR has said...this is really just putting into words what umpires have been taught for years. In your scenario, the umpires have the power and the authority to "fix" that situation, by ASA rule 10-3-C.

"The Plate Umpire may rectify any situation in which the revesal of an umpire's decision or a delayed call by an umpire places a batter, batter-runner, or the defensive team in jeopardy."

In your scenario, the infield fly is in effect by rule, if the umpires decided they "brain-farted" by not calling it, they can apply the rule, declare the batter out, and place any other runners on the bases they would have obtained, in the umpires judgement.

I would always advise coaches and player to play to the situation at hand and not worry about what the umpire is calling or not calling. If something like this happens, we can go back and fix it.

I

 

[MTR]

What he said.

The BR is out. If runners advance safely, nothing else happens. If, in the umpire's judgment, the runners were put out due to a reaction by the umpire's failure to call the IF, those runners would be returned to the bases they were on at the time of the pitch.

 

[tghorley]

Hmmm, what if the pop fly is in the gray area, can the IF get it or is it the OF that will get it. This is a judgement call by the umpire so I would think they would want to call the IFR or not so as not to have any confusion by anyone. On some of the fields that the girls play on, it would be hard to define the infield.

 

[Comp]

For it to be an infield fly the ball has to be catchable by an infielder with "normal effort". Unless the infielder was literally standing in the outfield on a ball hit into no mans land those balls could not be caught with normal effort.