Hitters know they have to get on base to score. Apparently Snohomish High School softball mom, Julianne Anderson, isn’t getting to first base with her hopes of scoring a rule change that makes softball a safer game.
An announcement by rule makers and coaches that because they aren’t inundated by requests their indifference is justified is a real head-shaking blooper.
The safety first base sounds simple and logical. The first baseman uses a base inside the foul line and the baserunner spikes the orange one outside the foul line to minimize collisions. If the batter has an opportunity for a double, she uses the inside base.
An 1846 rule states “A player running the bases … in no instance is a ball to be thrown at him.” That provision is as old, simple and logical as the interference with a runner rule. Rarely do you see a runner blocked or tackled except at home plate. Umpires eliminate interference with runners, or they eliminated the interferer.
When a change can make reaching first base safer, what’s the controversy? One, I was informed, is that accidents are not frequent enough to alarm coaches. Really! The American Softball Association (ASA) approved the use of the safety base years ago.
Other than the historical traditions and vested interests created in nearly all controversies, if the safety first base makes the game safer, and gives no advantage to offense or defense, what’s the problem? One wonders if the rationale is more commercial than injury-based.
The primary and most justified reason for changing sports fields and courts has always been safety. The more you learn about the safety base, the more you wonder if it might also be a good idea for third base
Players keep improving and are encouraged to take risks. Adopting safety rules about equipment and playing fields is an annual process. Fields and courts are becoming too small to house all the size, skill, ability and reckless abandon of today’s athletes. Remember when it became necessary to pad the bottom of basketball backboards about 20 years ago?
Shortly thereafter backboards were cut off at rim height to prevent players from banging their heads. Other than cutting out spectator titillation, no one noticed the shorter backboards and the game was not changed. In fact, big rebounders became even more reckless.
Body banging caused basketball free throw lanes to be widened from narrow keyholes to the international lane. Aggressive play was responsible for increasing the number of fouls allowed before fouling out. Metal bats emphasized the need for batters and runners to wear helmets to prevent collisions between balls and heads.
Remember when softball had 10 players and the ball was actually soft? Few, if any players on elementary school playgrounds had gloves? And when there was only one bat (sometimes broken and taped) which was handed to the next batter? Base runners were not required to wear helmets until a few line drives ricocheted off some heads.
Collisions and a ball being thrown from behind and completely out of a player’s vision may be rationalized as one of those “it’s part of the game” traditions. The risks of getting to first base are not a new safety concern. Years ago baseball experimented with two first bases. If I recall correctly, the experiment concluded two bases reduced collisions, ankle injuries and being hit from behind by a thrown ball.
As youth keep amazing us with personal bests, landing surfaces for jumping pits and throwing cages in track and field, football blocking and sacking rules and changes in uniform and other “safety equipment” need to keep pace. I must be missing something if takes a wave of petitions to give players the protection they deserve.
The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) is dedicated to protecting and fulfilling the philosophy of education sports. It has given exceptional service and support to its member schools through regulatory service since 1905.
It’s surprising that WIAA action is based upon the extent of lobbying, Is it a secret that Lake Stevens, Marysville-Pilchuck, Snohomish and Stanwood High Schools are using the safety base during the 2002-softball season?
Julianne Anderson’s request is for the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) to take action on a safety in sports concern. The WIAA Representative Assembly may adopt rules, but in this case the option to use or not use the safety base is the decision of each school.
Dan Leavitt Athletic Director of Lake Stevens High School accepted the responsibility for providing safe fields and took the advise of Vikings’ and ASA fastpitch coach Margo Leiter. She recommended the safe base be used at LSHS and Leavitt, a baseball coach for 16 years, concurred.
Leavitt said, “Fastpitch is a quicker game than baseball, the corners are up, and the opportunity for collisions greater than in baseball. Infielders have to throw quicker and runners run with intensity make plays at first consistently closer.” Although he would support the base for baseball, he is not ready to mandate it. Athletic rules aren’t quick to change.
When submitted by member schools, proposals passed become mandatory rules and regulations of WIAA. The WIAA Executive Board may submit amendments and grant rule experiments. The Board may adopt rules for state playoffs. It is also true the WIAA Board and their committees may propose national rulebook changes.
In Washington the safety base will not be used at state tournaments. It has been reported that WIAA concurs with a National Federation of High School Activities Association (NF) memo that encouraged states to not explore the option of using a safety first base.
The cost of the orange base is somewhere between $120 and $150. On the other hand a pint of illuminating orange paint might be about $5.00. Changing the bag anchor to accommodate the “safety base” takes about 10n minutes according to Snohomish High School fields’ maintenance director Mark McCallum. He says the safety base should be required.
Snohomish’s Julianne Anderson has created a hue and cry for consideration of a safety issue. To get to first base with a safety issue must there be a force out of rule makers? Reactionary decision making should not be the impetus for change. Changing rules for the safety of kids is far more defensible than not changing simply because of authority and/or ego.
It’s not who proposes change, but rather why the change is requested. Rules should be adopted because they best serve players, not because rule makers have been forced to adopt them.
Julianne Anderson’s quest for safety shouldn’t be picked off just because the crowd hasn’t booed loud enough.
Given one positive safety value justifies making a change.
Cliff Gillies, former executive director of the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association, writes weekly during the school year for The Herald. His mailing address is 7500 U.S. Highway 101, South Bend, WA 98586. His e-mail address is cliffsal@techline.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
