 |
Author |
TOPIC: Rules Discussion |
| Rudy
May 1, 2005
11:10:54 PM
Entry #: 825420
| If you want to talk about the rules, please post your message here.
|
|
| Bret - CCA Cubs
May 5, 2005
3:54:22 PM
Entry #: 832880
| I wanted to originally post this here...but started my own topic list in error...oops anyway first topic for your rules discussion...
Hi Rudy...I was talking to one of the players on Southview (the team we had just played) and he was mentioning that in some other slo-pitch leagues he has seen cones placed along the foul line 20 yards? or so past 1st and 3rd base...the outfielders had to stay behind this line until the ball was hit (a similar idea to the infielders having to stay behind the baseline)(the rover is of course not considered an outfielder- so they are exempt)...The idea was that this gave the female hitters in their league a fair opportunity to have a base hit and get on base without having to hit over or through a wall of 10 fielders all crowding the diamond...How do other people feel about this?? I think its a great idea and would make it more challanging in the field and more fun for alot of the hitters...Thanks Rudy, site is SWEET!
|
|
| Dennis (Hosanna)
May 6, 2005
12:44:48 PM
Entry #: 834423
| First, I have to agree that this site is sweet!
As for a minimum starting distance for outfielders, I can add some things for discussion.
A few years ago (when I was league treasurer and either Rudy or Warren Stein was the president), we actually did experiment with such a rule for one year. If memory serves, we required all of the outfielders to start at least 60 feet beyond the bases (and a rover IS considered an outfielder) until the ball is contacted. This was implemented for the exact reason that Bret metnions, but it applied to every hitter (let's face it, when we're trying to encourage male players who've never really batted before, it's intimidating for them too).
After one season, it was found that it wasn't working well enough, and the consensus seemed to be that 60 feet wasn't enough (for one thing, it wound up putting the fielders in prime position to take away hits that might have gone over their heads had the fielders been allowed to start closer).
Interestingly, rather than revise the rule to force the fielders back further to start, it was scrapped, and instead a new rule was implemented to require all fielders except the pitcher to start beyond the bases until contact (if you check the 2005 rules, available in the "handouts" section on this site, this is rule #5). This seems to have been at least somewhat effective as teams have accepted this rule as is.
But perhaps we should reconsider a minimum distance for the outfielders (and the rover may or may not be included in this limit). 90 feet beyond the bases may be worthwhile to try for a season.
In any case, this is a reasonable topic for discussion, but any decision would have to be made via a formal motion at the September league meeting.
Hope this helps.
Dennis
|
|
| Bret - CCA Cubs
May 6, 2005
3:09:41 PM
Entry #: 834754
| Thanks Dennis...for your reply, I did not know this had been attempted in our league some time ago. When I first heard of this idea I thought it was a good one...the information I was given (and it is second hand) was that some other leagues do employ this rule or have in the past with an exemption for the rover (whether considered an 'outfielder' or not). I did mean to imply the rule would be in effect for everyone, male and females alike. I would be interested to know more about why it was scrapped and why it didn't seem to work well...Thanks Bret
|
|
| Dennis (Hosanna)
May 6, 2005
5:24:58 PM
Entry #: 834942
| I think the reason this rule didn't fly was that our limit was too close. Keep in mind that our base paths are 60 feet, so putting the outfielders another 60 feet beyond that didn't create enough of a hole between the infield and outfield.
60 feet was chosen as an arbitrary limit because we really didn't know what would be reasonable. It was mentioned that some other leagues had some sort of limit, but nobody seemed to know what value they used.
Before the next season, the majority of the team reps at the annual meeting were against this rule. I recall one person complaining that the 60-foot limit didn't create enough space for their weaker hitters, and that it actually hurt their better female batters because they could put it over the outfield if those fielders cheated in too far (the 60-foot limit put them in position to now catch those hits).
It would have been interesting to see what a 90-foot limit would do, but the majority of team reps at that meeting voted to eliminate the outfield limit entirely and to implement the rule on the infield instead.
|
|
| Bret - CCA Cubs
May 6, 2005
8:56:54 PM
Entry #: 835149
| a quick Google search gave me a few leagues who have a similar rule...here are a couple of exerpts...
1)A cone is placed 75 feet beyond 1st base along the right field line, and another is placed 75 feet beyond 3rd base down the left field line. Three of the four outfielders must be lined up behind the arc formed by connecting the two cones and cannot move inside that arc until the ball is hit. An obvious violation should be brought up by the batting coach to the fielding coach and will result in the batter being awarded first base (2005 RULES OF THE CAPITAL ALUMNI NETWORK SOFTBALL LEAGUE)
2)Arc-Rule- 165 feet from home plate, and arc will be marked on the field from
foul line to foul line. Only one outfielder may be in front of the arc toward
home plate at the time of the pitch. Once the ball has left the pitcher’s hand,
the arc rule does not apply.
Ruling: The offended team can take the result of the play or elect to return
the batter to bat and assume the ball-strike count prior to the pitch. (Lousiana State University)
3)An encroachment restriction for the four outfielders is enforced during the tournament. It requires three of the four outfielders
to remain back near their normal fielding positions (a distance twice that of the base paths from home plate—a cone on
the first base and third base line would mark the distance) when a female becomes a batter. The fourth outfielder may
choose to play within or beyond the cone, but must remain positioned at the chosen distance on the field for all batters. (United States Congressional Softball League)
There is a sampling of it...and it looks like from what I've seen even 90' past the bases is too short...would need to push it back at least another 15-25 feet...at that point it may be useful...Later Bret
|
| Dennis (Hosanna)
May 9, 2005
10:43:51 AM
Entry #: 837753
| That's some good background work! That a number of leagues have such rules shows that other people see this as a problem too.
A couple of points that I see:
-I would suggest that fielders not be allowed to encroach until the ball is hit (and not once the ball is pitched) On a swing and a miss, there should be no penalty.
-it makes sense that the offense should have the option of taking the result of the play when there's an infraction. But there should be an available penalty such as if a fielder making a play encroached too early, the batter should be awarded first (and any forced runners as well). A stiffer penalty would be to award each runner a base regardless of force, but that's maybe too steep. But if an encroaching fielder wasn't involved in the play, I'd hate to see a penalty.
-just marking the foul lines may not be enough. Trying to imagine an arc connecting the two points would be difficult, which makes enforcement difficult as well. When we tried our version, we used 4 small disc-type pilons to approximate an arc.
Personally, I think an outfielder limit has merit in our league, but we haven't heard from any nays yet. Anyone?
|
| Rudy Welz
July 3, 2005
11:24:56 PM
Entry #: 927881
| After considering the discussions, I think it is better to open new topics for each rule discussion.
The forum does not let me edit items once submitted, and if I delete my message that started this topic it will delete all the messages.
Please disregard my first message in the forum, and start a new topic for each rule discussion.
|
|
| Chris Nissen
May 4, 2006
9:50:17 PM
Entry #: 1425143
| The league I played in in Calgary had this rule and the distance was 175 feet from the plate, which worked pretty well. It does seem far when you play it, but since you can run in once the ball is hit, it's OK.
They mark the arc with four cones; the inner two are placed 175 feet from first and third base on extensions of the baseline, which makes the arc not circular, but it's fine.
I'm glad to hear there is some support for this idea, and I'd like to keep bringing it up at the league meetings. I don't feel that the infielder rule is effective at all. There aren't that many women that the infielders would choose to start inside the baselines anyway.
|
|
| Dennis (Hosanna)
May 8, 2006
2:50:51 PM
Entry #: 1430827
| Chris, can you clarify the distance of the arc that was used in that league? You mentioned 175' fromt he plate, but then also stated 175' from 1B and 3B (which would be 240' from the plate if the bases were 65').
For anyone playing slo-pitch in Corporate Challenge this year, there will be an outfield line set at 150' from home plate. All outfielders must be beyond this arc until the ball is hit. Hopefully this will give us more fuel for discussion.
See the CC house rules at:
www.corporatechallenge.ab.ca/events/slo-pitch/Docs/SloPitchRules.pdf
|
|
| Dennis (Hosanna)
June 5, 2006
8:50:22 AM
Entry #: 1484751
| Well, Corporate Challenge slo-pitch went this past weekend. Our team didn't advance beyond the round robin, but from what I saw at the Lede diamonds in Leduc, the outfield line wasn't marked, and nobody seemed too concerned about where the fielders started, so that didn't give me anything from which to judge the effectiveness of a 150' line.
The teams had to self ump in the round robin, but outside umps were supposedly brought in for the playoffs. Does anyone know whether they were able to enforce this line?
|
|
| chris
September 25, 2006
9:28:41 PM
Entry #: 1698470
| We passed a motion for a 170' arc at tonight's annual meeting. I guess we'll see how it goes next year!
|
