Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: TABLE SETTER 11, softball4b; 98 anonymousDiscussion: New Rules
| Posted | Discussion |
| Dec. 4, 2015 Dbax Men's 65 2100 posts | New Rules Check out the new approved rules from the committee meeting. No longer playing down in the WMC. This should finally end the discussion. |
| Dec. 4, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | DBax, you are a optimised! ;-) I think there is more to it than just letting teams play down.. I think and know there should be a limit that makes more sense for the amount of players picked up on any team below Major Plus for the Worlds.. If you are allowed to pick up a possible 8 players on a team with only 7 players, you basically recreated a team and how can you even rate that team? Why have qualifiers when teams get bumped in the middle of the year base on performance, however a team thrown together has no track record.. I just don't get it.. I think Major team should play major teams and AAA teams should play AAA teams. At the Major plus level it's the best against the Best and they should be able to pick up who ever they get their hands on to complete a roster.. |
| Dec. 4, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | optimist.... sorry auto corrected on my phone.. lol |
| Dec. 5, 2015 DoubleL10 Men's 70 907 posts | Actually, from my reading, the teams not being able to play down rule only applies to the 40s thru 65s. It does not apply to age groups 70 and higher. |
| Dec. 5, 2015 DoubleL10 Men's 70 907 posts | The new rule I find most interesting from where I sit (70s) is the Mixed Bracket Equalizer where: "In tournament play where there are mixed brackets, defined as teams in different rating groups where one team is giving an equalizer, the team giving the equalizer shall be the Home team in all such games." Our 65 Major team rarely plays a team at the same rating level in area tournaments, so we almost always give an equalizer and play by the lower rated teams' home run rule (which by the way hardly ever causes us difficulty since we done hit many anyway). It is nice to know that now we will get to be home team without the coin toss! |
| Dec. 5, 2015 16wood Men's 65 77 posts | LL, "the team giving the equalizer SHALL be the Home team in all such games"... I added the emphasis on 'shall'... it is not an option. This can work against you in the seeding round... visitors can have a larger open inning... home team may not bat in last inning. The runs we give up also count against us in seeding (runs allowed), which really is a crock... To me, this rule is the equivalent of the Trojan Horse... a gift that is not really wanted/needed. You mentioned the break point is 65/70 for 'entire team playing down' rule. I expect that the committee felt the need to have that rule cease at some point (going up in age brackets), but I'm curious as to why they chose it there... i.e. why does it limit 65 teams but not 70s? I understand that if they do have a break point they have to put in somewhere... was it merely based upon the sessions? 65s and up play during the week, all others play on weekends... Neither rule change will cause insomnia for me but I always wonder why we bother to add rules like these. The latter one comes on the heels of Timmy's Tirade, of course, but only addresses entire teams. Applied retroactively, MTC would not have been allowed to play but Cornerstone would have been... did I interpret this in the correct way? BW |
| Dec. 5, 2015 cal50 Men's 50 328 posts | Dave will the new rule, §13.1 • COMPETITION, have any affect on playing with multiple teams in different age categories? Will this be determined by qualifying tournaments the team/players played in? This would exclude major plus teams playing a different age category. for example a 55 major plus team also play in the 50 major plus division? |
| Dec. 5, 2015 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | DoubleL10, would have rather seen the lower class team have to play by the upper class teams HR rule. At least it's something where it was a huge advantage for the lower teams with the gift runs, HR rule AND a coin toss. Should be an option for the upper class team though. |
| Dec. 6, 2015 SSUSA Staff 3485 posts | cal50 - To use the facts your hypothetical, a 55-Major Plus team may also play 50-Major Plus. The Committee's action was to prevent a Major+ team from automatically being permitted to "play down" to Major at the next younger age group in the World Masters Championships. Major Plus rosters are "open" to any players who are otherwise eligible as to age and residency. As such, automatically playing down does not allow SSUSA to evaluate that team's potential impact on the overall division balance. Every other team in the 50-Major division (again, using your example) was required to "qualify", but the 55-Major Plus team, through NO fault of their own, dropping down did not. |
| Dec. 7, 2015 Crusher23 Men's 55 53 posts | Staff – I’ve been wondering this for a while now: I’m 55 and I now qualify to play both 55 major + AND 50 major and I decide to play on a separate team for each age group. So, for the “regular” season I play a few 55 major + tournaments with that 55 m + team, and I play in a few 50 major turnies with the 50 m team. BOTH teams qualify for, and go to Vegas. The way I understand it, I legitimately qualify to play for both teams in Vegas, correct? Not trying to stir up anything, just want to make sure I understand this correctly. I think you all do and excellent job of running this association and I have no issues with any of the rules. I’m truly grateful to have SSUSA as an option to still be able to play competitive ball in my elder years. Thank you for all you do. |
| Dec. 7, 2015 SSUSA Staff 3485 posts | crusher23 ... You are "good to go" on both teams if they "qualify" and choose to attend ... The rule change was necessitated by the (former) factual circumstance that an older Major+ team did NOT have to "qualify" like every Major team in the bracket did ... The new rule is TEAM specific and not PLAYER specific ... Good luck! |
| Dec. 8, 2015 L 85 posts | I think this rule is good for the major and major plus as it defines the rule a little better but I think that there should still be something done about allowing a team to pick up more than 2 players in order to play. This creates like someone said before a disadvantage for other teams that don't load up for the nationals and bring what they played with all year. I know that everyone wants to play vegas but if you have to pickup players it should have a limit and the player should be from the next age group and the next lower rating other than the major plus. They should just put them on there own fields and open it up like they used to play in the 70s and pay the umpires more money as there games last longer that way there cant be any complaints about homeruns pitcher should be safer and a lot more fun for them. |
| Dec. 8, 2015 SSUSA Staff 3485 posts | An interesting bit of public testimony by the SSUSA roster eligibility staff during the Rules Committee discussion of the 2015 World Masters Championships roster composition matter ... • Number of Teams competing in Las Vegas in 2015: 546 • Number of Teams making a change to their qualifying roster: 546 (change = added and/or deleted players) • Number of Teams coming to Las Vegas with their exact same qualifying roster: ZERO |
| Dec. 8, 2015 gott2play Men's 60 212 posts | SSUSA, Your response would seem to imply that every team deleted/added players to "load up" for the WMC tournament. I would guess that the majority of teams added players already on their rosters who didn't make the tourney used to qualify for Vegas, in my team's case, the Top Gun Summer Classic. I'd be curious to know how many of the 546 teams added players not on their Master Roster. Tony Baltazar So Cal 55 - 55 Major Top Gun Elite - 60 Major Plus |
| Dec. 8, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | gott2play: C'mon.... It's settled. Never-the-less, why limit yourself? Everyone is meeting the same criteria. Get qualified players from wherever the rules allow. We all have a Player Card. You will meet more friends while getting better. It is defined regarding what level the individual players must play, and teams are limited in how many out-of-area players are on the roster. Please explain the "Master Roster" you believe that 546 teams should be bound to. When it is supposed to be presented, and when does it become binding. Sorry for my ignorance. Oh, one last thing, I would also like to know how a team keeps going if too many of them have issues. |
| Dec. 8, 2015 Mango Men's 50 159 posts | Bob, "16 Wood" TOURNAMENT COMPETITION POLICY • MIXED BRACKET EQUALIZERS– In tournament play where there are mixed brackets, defined as teams in different rating groups where one team is giving an equalizer, the team giving the equalizer shall be the Home team in all such games. Bob, I agree that this cam be a disadvantage to the team giving the equalizer in seeding games. Obviously everyone wants to be visitor in seeding games. I’m hoping that the term “tournament competition” means bracket play and that the team giving the advantage has the choice to hit first or not in seeding games or at least still a coin flip. SSUSA clarification? |
| Dec. 8, 2015 gott2play Men's 60 212 posts | TheCat43, I understand this issue is settled. The SSUSA Staff response was that every single team competing at the WMC made changes to their qualifying roster. Not sure what the extent of these changes were, but don't really care. The statement itself invited my comments. Teams are required to play a qualifying tournament with the players they want to take to Las Vegas for the WMC. Most regions will have a last chance qualifier to get everyone qualified for Las Vegas, in our case it was the Top Gun Summer Classic in San Clemente, Ca. Of course, if everyone from your team plays in every qualifier, you'll have no roster issues. Your request for me to explain the Master Roster tells me that you're not the Manager of your particular team. The Master Roster is the roster that is on file with SSUSA for every team...ours had 18 players. The Master Roster is not a qualifier for all tournaments. Every team's rosters are wiped clean after the WMC as everyone becomes a free agent prior to the Winter Worlds in Phoenix. Assuming your team plans to compete in SSUSA sanctioned tournaments commencing with the Winter Worlds, all teams are required to register their teams annually at cost of $35. Hope this helps. |
| Dec. 9, 2015 missouridave Men's 60 166 posts | I don't think that the majority of the changes made to the rosters for Vegas were people "loading up". My team had 14 guys on our qualifying roster. 13 of those 14 played in Vegas. I did not because my daughter got married that Saturday. I guess because I did not actually attend that was considered a "change". I hardly think that one of the team members not attending is really a change. I do agree that the rules allow a team to add players just for Vegas. There is always the loophole that SSUSA can basically allow teams to add if they OK it. I understand that they are running a business and they want as many teams as possible. But my team has not gone in the past because we had folks with work schedule conflicts, money problems, etc. I think there should be a limit of adding a maximum of two people who did not play on the qualifying roster. That would keep teams from loading up in my opinion. I would like to ask SSUSA to let us know how many teams in the 546 were allowed to add players who were not on the teams Master roster. That would be very interesting data. Thanks. Missouri Dave |
| Dec. 9, 2015 16wood Men's 65 77 posts | Mango, Here are my thoughts on this one... we already give up several things when we play M teams... 1) HR rules - not that big a deal to us because we seldom hit 9... but this is supposed to be a big reason they don't play M+... that and money. 2) Equalizer runs - 80% of the time the other team takes them in lieu of 11th fielder. 3) Lower runs/inning - again, not a huge deal in pre-season, tends to move games along... but inhibits our chances of catching up on freebies. 4) The equalizer runs count against us in seeding calcs... 5) Now... we are compelled to be home team... the opportunity to offset the equalizer runs is further mitigated. Perhaps the theory behind this rule is to move the game along or reduce the potential pain of a M+ team having a prolonged open inning... who really knows? Perhaps both. I'm all for our team playing the pre-season with 'legislated ankle weights' but I wasn't expecting an 'R Galvan backpack'... I mean, now it's 'piling on'... :-) I always wonder how well thought out these type of rules are... comprende PPR? Now there was a real dandy... sort of surprising to me that some of these were passed unanimously... I still have a JFK button for the 1960 Presidential election 'vote early, vote often'... (-: We don't really care about the equalizers in the local stuff... they're just developmental tourneys anyway, IMO. But when we play in 3 day events and play M teams in seeding this will come into play. Still, if the seeding outcome doesn't impact game times or number of games it's a 'no harm, no foul' As always, good talking with you... :-) BW |
| Dec. 9, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | gott2play: Thanks... and you're right that I don't manage as I would not want to. But I do like to "generally" know what's going on. Now, I get the picture about the "Master Roster." In regards to appearing at the Worlds with ONLY players from the original Master Roster: While a manager does his best to begin the season with whom he believes will finish with him, things happen. We are now at the age when people have issues which are more important than softball (health, family, work, other priorities, etc.). Also, some players just don't fit. That's why the rules allow teams to add and delete... Teams are not stuck with what they start with. In many cases, especially in the states with smaller populations and shorter playing seasons, teams don't have the "network" to effectively add and delete. As the Worlds approach, they may have a diminished roster, requiring some late adds. If they are lucky, they find some guys, get approval, and participate. Otherwise, they fold. If I had to guess, I would say that a lot of teams go to the Worlds with players whom were not on the original, early-season roster. There are plenty of criteria in place. Good managers understand the roster spots and the rules for filling them. That's part of the fun for managers... part of the challenge... part of the strategy... one of the many games within the game. Personally, I appreciate the best competition possible - Winning means more. I encourage teams to try to make it somehow and with the best team possible - As long as they COMPLY WITH THE RULES. Thanks again... |
| Dec. 10, 2015 L 85 posts | I agree in part to what TheCat43 is saying but to be able to pick-up 5 to 6 players that is not right we are a small area and have to get players from 3 states to fill our roster and the main reason that we have not gone to vegas is the fact that you can pick-up that many players and to me that is stacking a team when you go and hand pick your replacements. Therefore I still think that 2 pick-ups from the next age group and lower rating than the team picking them up will keep the teams more even. Everyone knows that there a very good players that are around at the next age group the only problem would be at AA where you could only pick-up a player at next age but same skill level. |
| Dec. 10, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | I agree with you L, Why have qualifiers if you can change over 50 percent of a starting team... How can you even rate a team that picks up 5 to 8 new players. Seems to me if you want to pick up more than 2 guys you should have to play at the next level up! Anytime you can change more than 20 percent of a starting team, the rating of that team should change.IMO Now the way it worked for us this year, is we picked up one player... who was on our roster all year and played with us all last year and the year before.. so when SSUSA says that all 500plus team made a change to their rosters.. Keep in mind that our change was someone already on our team that couldn't play with us this year do to work(but could come to Vegas).. We could pick him up for this Tourney, however in Western Nationals no dice... Kind of screwy don't you think? Then they allowed another team, which I won't mention pick up a starting pitcher out of Vegas that didn't play one inning with that team all year.. Go Figure.. |
| Dec. 11, 2015 TAT22 74 posts | I think in the near future, SSUSA will want to relax the border state rule with any division, frankly I don't care where you come from or who you play with so long as you are playing. It equals more teams and better competition. |
| Dec. 11, 2015 LeeLee50 140 posts | TAT22, I think the division you play in does matter, as Swing points out many players in 55 Major Plus can play and make an impact in 50 Major Plus. So the assumption of more teams and better competition could be argued. |
| Dec. 12, 2015 L 85 posts | This all goes back to the fact that as long as SSUSA allows teams to pickup over 2 players this will never be a fair playing field no matter what division you play in. |
| Dec. 12, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | I am not supporting massive roster changes at the end of a season. However, don't forget about the importance of "chemistry." My experience is that a team with too many new guys rarely plays well together. I have observed this with players on my teams as well as against my teams. Back in the day, we took our Friday night league team which had played together for many years to the annual "open" tournament. We beat two "A" teams who had picked up all of the area ringers. With our "chemistry," we won the tournament. I also experienced the same with my tournament team in an ASA 45+ National tournament where it was rumored a sponsor paid two guys $10,000 apiece to play - We beat them. There is pressure being on a new team - much more so in a big tournament with guys you have not played much with. A bunch of new guys on the other team worries me less than a team which has been together awhile. |
| Dec. 13, 2015 missouridave Men's 60 166 posts | I think that a reasonable approach, subject to SSUSA staff approval, would be to allow up to a maximum of two players be added to for Vegas that were not on the qualifying tournament roster. It would be limited to players who have played in at least one qualifying tournament and thus they would be on the Master roster for that year. All teams have multiple qualifying tournaments to play in and in the event of injuries or other issues adding two players from the master roster who have actually played for the team in a tournament seems very reasonable to me. I think that adding players who did not play for a team in a single tournament over the course of the year is inappropriate and not fair to other teams. I would be interested in others point of view. Thanks. Missouri Dave |
| Dec. 13, 2015 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | missouridave, I concur with everything you stated. Hope to meet you again sometime in the future. Andy Smith |
| Dec. 13, 2015 L 85 posts | Hope that SSUAS will finally pick-up on what teams and players are saying about picking up so many players and will limit it to the 2 players. |
| Dec. 13, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | SSUSA has done a great job. They have rules on everything being spoken of... And, they are quite fair as they apply to everyone. They take into consideration "the big picture" for all teams, whether from a highly populated area with plenty of players or from a sparse area where it's harder to fill a roster. |
| Dec. 14, 2015 L 85 posts | Let me understand your last post TheCat43 you agree that a team should be able to hand pick a new team almost to go to the nationals and put other teams that have there own players that have to compete against this hand picked team. The rule says they can be of the same class and or older and a class above if I understand what everyone is saying. So how is that fair to the other teams, what are they suppose to do completely change there team in order to compete or just not go to the nationals? I just don't see any way to get around this problem without limitations on the pick ups as stated above. |
| Dec. 14, 2015 Crusher23 Men's 55 53 posts | "If a participating team's roster falls below 12/13 players, the team MAY APPLY TO ADD players until it reaches the 12/13 player level. These players may be from the SAME (or older) age group in the SAME or LOWER skill level, pursuant to the player’s history over the current and two prior playing seasons. Managers must APPLY to SSUSA for approval of these players in writing. THESE PLAYERS ARE APPROVED OR DENIED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS." The rule is clear, and it is fair to all teams. This rule allows many teams to be able to attend Vegas who would otherwise not be able to do so. The rule is intentionally written so there is some flexibility in it, as it indicates that SSUSA has sole discretion over who it approves or denies. I highly doubt that SSUSA knowingly allowed a team to hand pick and load up for the turny. It is totally against their philosophy of protecting the lower level teams. However, there is clearly a perception that perhaps this did happen. I am sure this was an oversight, and not anything intentional by SSUSA. Now, SSUSA has acknowledged that their approval process was somewhat lacking and they've indicated that they will be more vigilant going forward and take a closer look at add-on applications in the future so one would hope that this will no longer be an issue. Let's give them a chance. As always, thank you SSUSA for giving me the opportunity to continue playing against and amongst my peers as I grow older. |
| Dec. 14, 2015 Turbo 34 Men's 50 47 posts | Maybe SSUSA should contact players from the original roster that aren't on the new roster to see if they were cut to allow for new players. SSUSA has every players info so check some as to why they aren't playing. You take any of the top ten 50 Major teams in the country and let them cut two or three of their worst players and add two or three 55 Major plus studs and you just bought a championship! |
| Dec. 14, 2015 16wood Men's 65 77 posts | I can see a potential problem with SSUSA contacting the players from every team that deletes players... 100+ teams x 2 players = 200+ phone calls... if the number of teams making changes exceeds 100 the admin times increases. BW |
| Dec. 14, 2015 Turbo 34 Men's 50 47 posts | I don't believe 100 plus teams will be adding two or more players. I believe. I think SSUSA knows when a team is trying to add 6-7 players there's a problem. Especially when 2-3 are 55 major plus players. |
| Dec. 14, 2015 L 85 posts | Crusher as you posted the rule then a team can cut players or say that they are unable to attend and then add back to the 12-13 so like Turbo 34 said you can buy a championship and the other teams have to not go or just to like it if they don't or are not willing to cut there players so they can load a team. I know that in the 70s that wasn't a problem because they all would load up teams but then they were paid money to play but most teams now are mostly uniforms and tourney fees not room and flights and eat money. I would just like a level playing field when you go to a tournament and pay the money that is required in order to attend and the one that puts up the money a legit chance for his team to win without loaded teams. |
| Dec. 14, 2015 Men's 65 1 posts | Rules Interpretation?? 7.3 • BATTING POSITION A. The batter must have at least some portion of both feet on or inside the lines of the batter's box at the start of the pitch. A batter who steps out of the batter’s box at any time during the pitch and then hits the ball, fair or foul, shall be called out. Steps out means touching the ground completely outside of the lines of the batter’s box. (See §1.5) Does this rule mean that if a batter steps one foot out of the batter's box as the ball is in the air to "Juke" the defensive players that he is not going to swing and then steps back in and establishes position in the batter's box and then hits the ball, would he be called "OUT"? |
| Dec. 14, 2015 Crusher23 Men's 55 53 posts | L - Turbo 34 addressed this above. |
| Dec. 14, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | L: No... I meant only to make the following three points: 1 - The rules are written well as they are. It's not easy for teams from some areas to fill rosters, and the rules leave a degree of flexibility for that. 2 - Someone must write and enforce rules. I trust SSUSA to administer the rules consistently and fairly for all teams. 3 - My experience is that I would rather play a team composed of all new guys, rather than a team that has played together for a long time... You can't beat chemistry. Some people give too much credit to a bunch of new guys thrown together at the last minute. They will NOT have good chemistry and will be VERY beatable... most of the time. Adds don't worry me at all. |
| Dec. 14, 2015 L 85 posts | TheCat43 thank you for your answer but we all have thoughts on this and we will all have to do what SSUSA sets as rules if we want to play in the nationals. But you probably see more teams if you were allowed to only pick up 2 or 3 players. Our team used to go to vegas almost every year until they allowed so many pick ups and it was just not worth spending thousands of dollars and compete with a few loaded teams and we would not drop players. |
| Dec. 14, 2015 LeeLee50 140 posts | TheCat43, if you release 5 not so good guys and pickup 5 really good guys, I will take my chances on the last option. I do remember SSUSA stating that a particular team was allowed to pickup players 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. That is 5 players and none of those 5 players were not good players. I know for a fact at least 3 possible 4 were on the field or in the lineup in the Championship game. So you might want to leave the sleeping dog lie. |
| Dec. 14, 2015 missouridave Men's 60 166 posts | TheCat43 I very clearly understand the current rules as they relate to the World tournament in Vegas. We can agree to disagree on this one. I do NOT think it is fair to add any players who did not play in ANY qualifying tournaments and who were NOT on the master roster for that calendar year. The current rules, in my opinion, allow teams to "load" up. Maybe not true at the Major or Major Plus level. But at the AAA level for an example it is easy to do so. There are a significant number of players at the AAA level who are quite capable of playing at the Major or Major plus levels. They don't have a lot of these guys on one team because they would end up getting bumped eventually as they would win tournaments. However, you could under the current rules add 5 of these type players (classified as AAA because that is where they play) to a good AAA team and have a significant advantage. That is why I am suggesting that only 2 players be allowed to be added that were not on the qualifying roster but they have to be on the Master roster for the year. Appreciate you participating in the discussion. Missouri Dave |
| Dec. 14, 2015 Allan55 102 posts | I agree with you, missouridave. I suggested adding no more than two players in another thread. LeeLee, I would have to agree with you also. Three, four, or five players can make a huge difference. I don't think I am the only player who has participated in tournaments or league playoffs where you play a team that is average at best, only to see that team add four or five players when it is money time. Chemistry is important (TheCat43), but skilled players are hard to beat...especially adding four or five of them. |
| Dec. 15, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | Hey, great debate guys. We all agree that "dropping" players specifically to load is FLAT WRONG. I would like to think managers have more ethics than that (with few exceptions), AND SSUSA, as a neutral party, would fairly screen that. While we all support the rules and trust SSUSA to keep the above under control, you are spot on as "we will have to agree to disagree" on the following point based upon my personal experiences at all levels: "Throw together" teams generally have no chemistry. While they may beat some of the "middle of the pack" teams, USUALLY, they can't beat a "solid" team that has been together long enough to have good chemistry (comfort, trust & belief in one another). Most good, solid teams, worthy of winning a world championship, will almost always beat a throw together team. Many of the new guys will have off tournaments, gag in critical situations, and press as they try to get comfortable and prove their great reputation to a bunch of others. DON'T FEAR THEM!! They are NOT all the hype is suggesting. Go at them with all of your potential... Beating them is very, very doable and adds to the fun... It gives more meaning to your wins. |
| Dec. 15, 2015 LeeLee50 140 posts | Really TheCat43, I don't think anybody is talking about a throw together team. So squash all the BS about chemistry. If you have solid team of 7 to 9 guys and you pick up 5 very good players, I the think they will do pretty dam good. Matter of fact specially if 3 of the guys you add are a staring pitcher, 2nd baseman and leadoff hitting 5 man, you know strong up the middle. This will have a serious positive impact on a team. Once again leave a sleeping dog lie. |
| Dec. 15, 2015 16wood Men's 65 77 posts | Cat43: Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't your team (Cornerstone) the essence of a throw together team? I didn't see any of the 50 M teams play nor do I have a real clue about any of the players involved. I'm just going by what I've read on here. If Cornerstone was a 'throw together team' its success would seem to dispute your premise. I've been around throw together teams that didn't do well and, at times, because of the very things you mentioned. However, I've also seen quite the opposite... they did REAL well. If you live/play as long as I have you'll see pretty much anything. My opinion on this is that it depends upon who you pick up and who you already had... if you add 'me first' guys, you'll probably fail. BW |
| Dec. 15, 2015 SSUSA Staff 3485 posts | For those interested in seeking changes to Rulebook §4.2(2) governing roster additions for the Eastern & Western Nationals, the World Masters Championships and the T.O.C., your next opportunity will be during the 2016 SSUSA Annual Convention National Rules Committee sessions. Those will take place in Las Vegas from November 29-December 2, 2016, for changes that would, if passed, become effective for the 2017 SSUSA Season. The 2016 Season rules are set and will not be changing. We encourage you to attend and participate in the open Rules Committee meetings. You may also present identifiable written commentary in advance by email or formal correspondence for potential Agenda consideration. REMINDER: Message Board commentary, due to it's generally anonymous and most often factually deficient nature, is specifically excluded from Rules Committee Agenda consideration. We hope to see you there! |
| Dec. 15, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | Hey LeeLee: Careful or you won't get your cookies - LOL. Your facts are not correct (Tim??). I won't get into everything all over again. But, just to demonstrate, I was the starting pitcher, and I WAS NOT - REPEAT... NOT an add (committed last year, played league, and made first practice in Spring), nor were there the number of adds that were rumored. With that said, you're right, let's leave a sleeping dog lie. I stand by my post above. In fact, I more than double down on it. I would rather play a team with a bunch of adds, than a team that has been together and developed chemistry like your great team has... and Cornerstone did. I will let the readers out there learn... or never learn for themselves regarding the specifics... but, it's not adds... I know you know what it takes... You have been there... more than once. I'll play a bunch of adds and beat them most of the time... and so will you. By the way, how is chocolate chip? |
| Dec. 15, 2015 Slap hitter 28 posts | I thought this was over...But I am Curious... Is this a bad time to say I will go to the highest bidder...Don't tell anti-stein. Resume...5 man middle guy, lead off hitter, chemistry guru and not against playing for a pick-up team. I'm just trying to make everyone happy...lol! Forgot how much fun this was...lol! |
| Dec. 16, 2015 L 85 posts | To All what if we go back to the time that you had to earn your berth in order to go to the nationals and had to come in at least 4th place in order to get a berth. You had certain tournaments you had to attend and if you didn't you could not go. Also there were no subs added to the roster. This would help weed out problems but the companies would not have 500 teams to make all the money from but have a lot less problems. The companies could certainly class all the teams a lot better as they would not have a problem with roster and able to see all the players that will be in each division. |
| Dec. 16, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | L, don't you think it's unfair to the lower divisions that a team can changed it's roster for worlds up to and over 50 percent! That is the only issue that bugs me. Why have qualifiers? If you can change a teams starting lineup by that many people, you cannot gauge what that team can do! Teams play all year together and SSusa gets a pretty good Idea where they should be, however with the amount of pickups allowed, that changes the whole picture... I say two pickups at most, that's 20 percent of a starting lineup.. That alone can have a lot of impact depending on who your team is and who you pick up... anything more than that is absurd, and that team should be bumped to the next highest division when picking up more than two, IMO! |
