Follow
Donate to HeyBucket.com - Amount:

Welcome Anonymous !

Your Fastpitch Softball Bible
 

Fastpitch Discussions

Proposed ASA rule changes

What's on your mind?

by GIMNEPIWO » Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:17 am

MTR wrote:
GIMNEPIWO wrote:Tough to tell the difference between runners who were advancing at their own risk and runners who were put out because of the 'non-call' ...


Not really in a game situation. While not a mind reader, body, facial and verbal expression often provide enough to determine intent or cause.


Well, my gals need to work on their body, facial and verbal expression because we had it go against us twice this last year ... I need to go to work designing a drill for that ... :lol:
"For the strength of the pack is the wolf, the strength of the wolf is the pack" Rudyard Kipling
User avatar
GIMNEPIWO
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:58 am
Location: Between Rock & Hard Place

by MTR » Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:26 pm

GIMNEPIWO wrote:
MTR wrote:
GIMNEPIWO wrote:Tough to tell the difference between runners who were advancing at their own risk and runners who were put out because of the 'non-call' ...


Not really in a game situation. While not a mind reader, body, facial and verbal expression often provide enough to determine intent or cause.


Well, my gals need to work on their body, facial and verbal expression because we had it go against us twice this last year ... I need to go to work designing a drill for that ... :lol:


So your players were called out because the umpire was not experienced enough to tell the difference? Maybe it is because I've been doing this for 46 years and it comes easy.
MTR
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:21 am

by GIMNEPIWO » Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:36 am

MTR wrote:
GIMNEPIWO wrote:
MTR wrote:
GIMNEPIWO wrote:Tough to tell the difference between runners who were advancing at their own risk and runners who were put out because of the 'non-call' ...


Not really in a game situation. While not a mind reader, body, facial and verbal expression often provide enough to determine intent or cause.


Well, my gals need to work on their body, facial and verbal expression because we had it go against us twice this last year ... I need to go to work designing a drill for that ... :lol:


So your players were called out because the umpire was not experienced enough to tell the difference? Maybe it is because I've been doing this for 46 years and it comes easy.


Not sure on the level of experience ... but certainly not 46 years ;) ... Once, I believe the defense ( F6) dropped the ball intentionally to try to turn 2, picked off our runner from 2nd who was studder stepping off of the bag after the drop and then IFR was verbalized ... The other time it was between F4 & F6 behind the bag and they just missed it ... They got the runner from 1st base off the bag when she had a brain fart and left the bag running after the drop ... Then IFR was verbalized ... Both occasions were on Saturday, so I questioned the calls, shook my head and let it roll .... :D
"For the strength of the pack is the wolf, the strength of the wolf is the pack" Rudyard Kipling
User avatar
GIMNEPIWO
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:58 am
Location: Between Rock & Hard Place

by MTR » Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:15 pm

GIMNEPIWO wrote:
Not sure on the level of experience ... but certainly not 46 years ;) ... Once, I believe the defense ( F6) dropped the ball intentionally to try to turn 2, picked off our runner from 2nd who was studder stepping off of the bag after the drop and then IFR was verbalized ... The other time it was between F4 & F6 behind the bag and they just missed it ... They got the runner from 1st base off the bag when she had a brain fart and left the bag running after the drop ... Then IFR was verbalized ... Both occasions were on Saturday, so I questioned the calls, shook my head and let it roll .... :D


The second one is a no brainer, put the runner's back. The first I would have to see.
MTR
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:21 am

by arkansassoftball » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:37 am

I think they should allow the returning college players back in who are age eligible. If not all college players, I think they should definitely allow Juco players to play Gold since they are still recruitable athletes.
arkansassoftball
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:07 pm

by coach_ray » Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:48 pm

arkansassoftball wrote:I think they should allow the returning college players back in who are age eligible. If not all college players, I think they should definitely allow Juco players to play Gold since they are still recruitable athletes.


Agreed.

If ASA doesn't want college kids playing then change the age back to Sept. 1 or call it 18HS. Don't make every other age bracket's (8U, 10U, 12U etc.) cutoff Jan. 1 then tell girls who may have played with the same team the last 5 or 10 years as they've grown up together that they can no longer play with their teammates because they are now in college. How fair is that?

It's not ASA's responsibility to make sure their national tournaments are showcases. It's supposed to be the best 18U teams playing, right? Then how can you exclude over half of the players that are age eligible and call it the best of the best.

It makes more sense to me to change how rosters can be set then it does excluding the college kids, especially JUCO kids that are still trying to make it to 4 year schools. If you're so worried about having college kids displacing the HS kids after the HS kids qualify then change the rule to say that only players that were PARTICIPATING on another ASA roster at the time of qualification can be picked-up and only limit it to one or two pick-up players. If the team has the college players already listed on the roster then so be it. At least you will know going in that the team is going to bring back college players in the summer. You then have to make a decision as a parent whether or not you want your DD playing on that type of team.

Here in Florida it doesn't matter anyway. The qualifiers are all in the summer so the majority of college kids would be back playing with their teams once they started. The fall is for showcases so the HS kids get all the looks they want. In the spring the kids still in HS are all playing high school. There are no 18U travel teams playing Jan. through the middle of May in Florida so there is no problem here...move on.

It seems to me that the people that don't like college kids playing only feel that way because they are more interested in making the national tournaments more about showcasing their own players than competing against the best of the best. They can still choose to go that route if they want, but don't cry to ASA that it's unfair that other teams are using college players so they should just exclude them...really??? It sounds like the current political mantra in this country. Hey, why do they have all the money? We don't have it so let's take it away from them. :o

I'm ranting, but isn't that what this forum is for. I just hate the fact that my team has three girls who are freshman in college this year but if the rule passes (passed?) are not going to be allowed to play with the team they have played with the past 4 years even though they are 18U age eligible next year. We'd like to go back to 18U A nationals again next year and see if we can improve on our 9th place finish. I know the other 10 HS girls on the team want them back. Wouldn't be the same without them. But it is what it is I guess.
coach_ray
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:21 am

by Sam » Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:54 pm

Coach Ray,

Take the "Gold" off your team moniker and try to qualify at 18U. Problem solved.

ASA recognized that 18Gold represents players who don't get paid to play. The can get paid to play at Women's Open, 23U or 18U. The players have options.
Run your mouth when I'm not around
Its easy to achieve
You cry to weak friends that sympathize
- Pantera, Walk
User avatar
Sam
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Norco, California

by jonriv » Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:44 am

Sam wrote:Coach Ray,

Take the "Gold" off your team moniker and try to qualify at 18U. Problem solved.

ASA recognized that 18Gold represents players who don't get paid to play. The can get paid to play at Women's Open, 23U or 18U. The players have options.



The vast majority of college players are not "paid" (scholarships) as you like to put it
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

by Sam » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:04 pm

jonriv wrote:
Sam wrote:Coach Ray,

Take the "Gold" off your team moniker and try to qualify at 18U. Problem solved.

ASA recognized that 18Gold represents players who don't get paid to play. The can get paid to play at Women's Open, 23U or 18U. The players have options.



The vast majority of college players are not "paid" (scholarships) as you like to put it


Maybe a vast majority don't receive athletic scholarships, but many of them receive financial help, at all levels, in the form of other scholarships. They also get tudors at no cost. In any case, they also have options in ASA.
Run your mouth when I'm not around
Its easy to achieve
You cry to weak friends that sympathize
- Pantera, Walk
User avatar
Sam
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Norco, California

by jonriv » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:20 am

My DD gets no financial aid, tudors etc.... as with most college softball players

Yes there are options- 18u being one of them right now
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

PreviousNext

Return to Fastpitch Discussions