ASA 2012 Proposed Rule Changes

[Greenmonsters]

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.

Unfortunately, this is the reason/excuse I've most commonly heard when the umpire obviously brain-farted and didn't call IFR. To be able to "fix" the problem, it requires that the umpire(s) first acknowledge they made a mistake. I have a lot of respect for those that do admit when they screwed up (i.e., yeah, that should've been called a ball instead of a strike, but don't expect a make up!), not so much for those that don't.

 

[tghorley]

I agree with you 100% Comp, but "normal effort" is still a judgement call. All I am saying is let the umpire call it or not and then there would be no confusion. I can see where the offensive coach and defensive coach could see a play totally different. Just let the umpire call it, right or wrong, it erases all questions.

 

[GI Tom]

I am fully aware and understand how you fix the issues as ajay described, but that was not the intent of my post. Let me try a different approach, as I'm very interested in other umpires opinions on this.

In the case of this rule change, do we all really think it's more prudent to take the situation where an umpire doesn't have to call IFR and potentially generate more situations where it's unlcear to everyone, or leave it the way it is? While it still would be unclear in current instances where an umpire doesn't call it and should, that seems like less "fixing" than if umpires just don't have to call it anymore and get lazy or trained improperly.

I feel like we probably call more IFR when we are supposed to instead of not calling it when we should. Does anyone agree with that statement? If so, this rule change is to address the latter. This is the conundrum part I was driving at earlier. You fix one part, but still create or still leave a problem somewhere else.

It just seems like we might start getting lazy in training methods and say "don't worry about calling IFR anymore, it's all fixed!" That is pure speculation, but why make things messier than they already are on a currently missed IFR call. Now you might have to do more egg unscrambling in these situations rather than playing softball.

I hope all that made sense. I'm not being argumentative. Again, I feel confident I understand why the rule change is being proposed, I just feel it will take a situation that is already a little messy and potentially make it even worse by ultimately generating more occurrences of it.

 

[BretMan]

It just seems like we might start getting lazy in training methods and say "don't worry about calling IFR anymore, it's all fixed!".

I can't envision any competent trainer ever taking that line of reasoning.

I'm sure that future training will be the same as it has always been- if you judge an infield fly, signal and call it properly.

All the proposed "rule change" (which isn't really a change to the playing rules, but just an added emphasis to existing guidelines) really says is that if the conditions for an infield fly are all met, then it IS an infield fly, whether the umpire announces it or not. The "editorial notation" (I can't even bring myself to call it a "rule change") address a coach's argument that if the infield fly wasn't called, it can't be invoked after the fact. That has never been the case.

Nothing is changed with respect to the playing rules, and I don't think that anything will change with respect to how umpires are trained to call the infield fly.

 

[MTR]

In the case of this rule change, do we all really think it's more prudent to take the situation where an umpire doesn't have to call IFR and potentially generate more situations where it's unlcear to everyone, or leave it the way it is? While it still would be unclear in current instances where an umpire doesn't call it and should, that seems like less "fixing" than if umpires just don't have to call it anymore and get lazy or trained improperly.

I feel like we probably call more IFR when we are supposed to instead of not calling it when we should. Does anyone agree with that statement? If so, this rule change is to address the latter. This is the conundrum part I was driving at earlier. You fix one part, but still create or still leave a problem somewhere else.

It just seems like we might start getting lazy in training methods and say "don't worry about calling IFR anymore, it's all fixed!" That is pure speculation, but why make things messier than they already are on a currently missed IFR call. Now you might have to do more egg unscrambling in these situations rather than playing softball.

I hope all that made sense. I'm not being argumentative. Again, I feel confident I understand why the rule change is being proposed, I just feel it will take a situation that is already a little messy and potentially make it even worse by ultimately generating more occurrences of it.

I will repeat, THIS IS NOT A RULE CHANGE. This is the way it already is. Absolutely nothing new here. I find the thought that umpires would be trained or just ignore the call because it can be fixed is absurd.

We are also talking about a rare occurance, however, now that it is being "offered" may cause issues just as it has on boards because people are overthinking this issue and will now become an argument every time an umpire does not rule an IF. And this will happen because many, and I mean many people haven't a clue of what the true parameters of the IFR.

To start, there is no "infield" or "outfield" in the IFR. The ball can land in the infield and not be an IF or can be caught on the grass and be an IF.

There is absolutely NO downside to this except for the coaches who think their Gene SFB Mauch or Billy ****ing Martin and think that winning at all cost is everyone's mission in life.

 

[Greenmonsters]

I will repeat, THIS IS NOT A RULE CHANGE. This is the way it already is. Absolutely nothing new here. I find the thought that umpires would be trained or just ignore the call because it can be fixed is absurd.

We are also talking about a rare occurance, however, now that it is being "offered" may cause issues just as it has on boards because people are overthinking this issue and will now become an argument every time an umpire does not rule an IF. And this will happen because many, and I mean many people haven't a clue of what the true parameters of the IFR.

To start, there is no "infield" or "outfield" in the IFR. The ball can land in the infield and not be an IF or can be caught on the grass and be an IF.

There is absolutely NO downside to this except for the coaches who think their Gene SFB Mauch or Billy ****ing Martin and think that winning at all cost is everyone's mission in life.

In the interest of promoting stereotypes, someone seems to be channeling Ron "I want to be the center of attention" Luciano

 

[MTR]

In the interest of promoting stereotypes, someone seems to be channeling Ron "I want to be the center of attention" Luciano

You need to change your name, the wall is smarter.

 

[Greenmonsters]

You need to change your name, the wall is smarter.

It's taller too, but you probably didn't notice because you need new glasses, Mr. Cranky Rabbit Ears

 

[Crabby_Bob]

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.​

I am against this. Ask yourself, "How many chances does the pitcher have to get this right?" Thousands in practice. How about in a game? With bases empty, the first four IPs result in a walked batter (and maybe a few strikes or an out wiped out.) Now, the penalty gets stiffer. Three more IPs will result in a run scored. Still, this is seven chances to get it right. The penalty is progressive; perfect for those who "don't get it".

If #25 passes, it would take 16 IPs to score a runner. This is, in my opinion, a ridiculous result.

 

[SoCalSoftballdad]

I am against this. Ask yourself, "How many chances does the pitcher have to get this right?" Thousands in practice. How about in a game? With bases empty, the first four IPs result in a walked batter (and maybe a few strikes or an out wiped out.) Now, the penalty gets stiffer. Three more IPs will result in a run scored. Still, this is seven chances to get it right. The penalty is progressive; perfect for those who "don't get it".

If #25 passes, it would take 16 IPs to score a runner. This is, in my opinion, a ridiculous result.

In real game situations, your scenario does not play out this way. Most of the time, the umpires are not consistent in calling IPs, so you could have a pitcher who has pitched several innngs start getting called for an IP, with runners already in scoring position, especially if the losing coach starts complaining to the umpires to watch for illegal pitches. Or you can have a relief pitcher come in who takes over with runners on base and make one pitch and is called for an IP and all runners move up one base. For example, last summer during tournaments, my #1 pitcher threw approximately 1700 pitches over 20 games and was called 4 times for IPs (2 for crow-hopping; 1 for stepping on the pitching plate without her hands separated; and 1 for starting the the pitch and stopping (she thought batter called time). All of these IPs were called in the middle of the game.

In my opinion, giving a ball on the batter AND having all baserunners move up one base is too severe a penalty and really takes away from the game, especially at the younger levels where the players are just learning how to pitch correctly.