http://www.mikensports.com/

 
SIGN IN:   Password     »Sign up

Message board   »Message Board home    »Sign-in or register to get started

Online now: 0 members ; 7 anonymous
Change topic:

Discussion: 1-1 or 0-0

Posted Discussion
Feb. 28, 2013
BruceinGa
Men's 60
2581 posts
1-1 or 0-0
Rather than hijack Ricky Bobby's thread I'll add to The Wood's reply to Marv19.
I've stated this before, we players should be totally against any effort to shorten the length (time wise) of games. I understand Marv's reasoning that we might want to play 7 innings but imo we should lobby to increase the time limits or do away with any time limit. I realize that tournament directors would not agree here but I have seen in some instances this would work. For instance, in Plant City, fl a few weeks ago, Friday and Saturday we finished play each of those days around 5 or 6 o'clock. We were asking our selves why weren't more games scheduled later in the day. Maybe the game time limits should have been set to 1 1/2 hours? I understand that in a very large tournament this may not be possible.
I believe there needs to be more done with scheduling than rule changes.
Feb. 28, 2013
Al33
Men's 55
183 posts
Bruce, I couldn't agree with you more. We as players absolutely shouldn't be looking for ways to shorten or quicken up games. For the distance we travel, the time we invest and the money we spend, We should see all games go the distance. Period. Times limits should be eliminated or expanded. Period. I copied below some info from previous posts about 1-1 versus 0-0. Just some food for thought. Your also right about playing later in the day. TD's have no problem with the early 8AM games, by why don't we play later in the day? Great question.


Max Pitches per batter:

#1 Ball 2
#2 Strike 2
#3 Ball 3
#4 The fowl to give per survey
#5 Last possible pitch

With a 1-1 starting count I will be swinging on #1 or #2 pitch in the above serino

4-3-max pitches per batter.

#1-Ball
#2-Ball
#3-Strike
#4-Strike
#5-Ball
#6-Last possible pitch

In this scenario most batters will be swinging at 2-1 pitch.

Difference is one pitch and when people talk it is like EVERY batter goes to 3-2, and that is not true. If your pitcher throws strikes, the batter is usually swinging by the second pitch.
Feb. 28, 2013
4x4
Men's 65
589 posts
From what I understand the one hour time limit was engineered by umpires unwilling to accept a certain amount of money for games that went 1 hour 15 minutes and wanted to work only an hour per game.

I have never figured out why we are catering to the people that are basically working for us in the first place.
Feb. 28, 2013
mad dog
Men's 60
3919 posts
i have no prol with a 1-1 count,usssa has been doing since the 80's.........

also next time you hire someone to do a job,pay them for a hour but have them work 1.5+ hrs,see how that goes over with them.........
Feb. 28, 2013
Al33
Men's 55
183 posts
Who cares what USSSA has been doing since the 80's. Does that make it rright? And we didn't do it back in the 80's by the way when I played. Umpires don't get paid by the hour, they get paid by the game. Those that are unwilling to accept the game fee, don't hire them. What you got now are many guys that do it strickly for the money and many times it shows.
Feb. 28, 2013
mad dog
Men's 60
3919 posts
if you played usssa you did......unless you played by a local rule for your league/tourney...anything state/national(qualifiers and such) you played 1-1 count.....
Feb. 28, 2013
Corky
Men's 55
444 posts
As a player and umpire, I have no problem with the 1 and 1 count, for the following reasons.
As a hitter:Pitchers idealy want to get ahead in the count. With 1 and 1 the first pitch is critical to them and as a batter I'm prepared prepared to jump on the first pitch. If not (and its a strike) I'm behind and will have to hit something close, that I may not want to hit.
With a full count to work with, as a hitter I will at least wait for 1 strike and at bats are usually longer. (It IS a hitters game).
As an umpire: 1 and 1 makes hitters more aggressive and does speed up the game. We are usually paid on a per game scale and my $17 an hr game now becomes approx $11 for games going an hr, and a half......not many of you would like that kind of cut in pay.
Most seniors do not like playin after dark and the host cities want you out having dinner and spending $$$$. Just my 2cents........besides we aren't gonna quit playin either way!!
Feb. 28, 2013
mad dog
Men's 60
3919 posts
corky,ding-ding a winner......
Feb. 28, 2013
BruceinGa
Men's 60
2581 posts
Corky, I wonder how many seniors don't like playing at 8:00am. ;)
Feb. 28, 2013
birdie
Men's 60
671 posts
Bruce, I would take 800am over 800pm any day of the week. I like the idea that games pretty much stay on time. I found it very frustrating showing up at 900am and playing your last game that was scheduled at 800pm but started at midnight. I prefer tourneys where the games stay pretty much on time. Whatever it takes to make that happen I am in favor of. Thanks Harry
Feb. 28, 2013
BruceinGa
Men's 60
2581 posts
Harry, I too like for games to be on time. I would suggest that a longer time be given to games on the schedule (like e hrs) and maybe even don't schedule a game every third or fourth slot. If games do fall behind an open slot should get it back on schedule.
Feb. 28, 2013
softballman47
Men's 65
8 posts
I for one do not like the 1 - 1 count or time limits per game - schedule games 1 1/2 a part then staying on track should not be a problem - also most Seniors do not like 8 am games - you have to get up at 6 am - way to early
Feb. 28, 2013
softballman47
Men's 65
8 posts
1 1/2 hours
Feb. 28, 2013
4x4
Men's 65
589 posts
Other way around MD.....game times chopped - pay remained the same. It was the reverse of what you took it to be. Game pay was raised not lowered.

Wouldn't we have all have liked to demand less hours to work with the pay remaining the same. In essence a 25% raise while undermining the length and quality of the product.

Probably changing the ultimate outcome of many games and tourney winners.
Feb. 28, 2013
DCPete
228 posts
Would much rather play at 8pm if necessary than 8am (or earlier in some cases).
At 8am games half the fields have blinding sun in either the batter or pitchers eyes, the grass is still wet which breaks senior bats quicker than anything, you have to get up way too early and there's not enough time to get loosened up.
And the 1 - 1 count probably averages 2 to 3 less pitches per batter since most swing at the 1st good pitch to avoid getting into a 2-strike count.
Feb. 28, 2013
swing for the fences
Men's 50
975 posts
I would go 1 and 1 count and 1hr20 per game time limit... my feeling on 1 and 1 is it keeps the game moving and defense on their toes... the flow of the game feels better with 1 and 1. I like to get 4 to 5 abs then 3 to 4 abs batting in the top part of the lineup... IMO
Feb. 28, 2013
4x4
Men's 65
589 posts
At 1:20 per game you could/should go full 0-0 count and still get a full game in.

There is a whole lot more satisfaction playing a full game out and getting a decision than - 4 or 5 innings - never knowing what the actual outcome would have been if it had gone the full term regulation 7 innings.

A lot of things have happened in those innings when they are allowed to take place. Often times that's where the real gut it out win the game takes place and in most (very high percentage) games and teams are cheated out of it.
Feb. 28, 2013
swing for the fences
Men's 50
975 posts
agree with you 4X4... either way would be good with me.
March 1, 2013
Jawood
Men's 50
784 posts
For the 1000th time, the 1 and 1 count replaces the dead time everyone stands around watching batters take pitches with playing action. We are not looking to shorten the games! 10 minutes of playing time replacing 10 minutes of dead time sounds pretty good.
March 1, 2013
SSUSA Staff
1004 posts
So does being warmed up and ready to play well before game time, filling out game cards ahead of time, hustling in and out of the dugouts/field between innings, minimizing excessive warm up pitches, limiting/eliminating between inning infield, not throwing down to 2nd to start an 'around-the-horn' and having courtesy runners staged and quickly deployed, to name a few other efficiency factors.

[The 1-1 count annual "Harold Stassen Issue" has been decided for this Season. Support for the 1-1 starting count increased by 0.07% over the past six years, not exactly a trending mandate for change.]

March 1, 2013
missouridave
Men's 55
69 posts
SSUSA Staff. I cannot argue with anything you posted. However, although the total vote clearly showed a preference for a 0-0 count, the under 60 age group was definitely in favor of the 1-1 count.
March 1, 2013
garyheifner
334 posts
Being a pitcher/outfielder< I have taken special note of game/speed/time etc. Wife and I spent two grand on the vegas week world championships and didn't gamble. I would spend any amount to play softbal However, If I am going to drop two grand, I want to play "7" inning games and it really grates at me that I played in 5 and 6 inning games this past year at the worlds. There was one stretch, I tracted where in "3" straight games not "ONE SINGLE" opponent swung at the 1st strike. With 1-1 that is never going to happen. Also, with 0-0 the pitcher will throw significantly more pitches and fatique is a real factor if you play 8-9 or more games. Especially in heat.

I sincerely believe in the courtesy runner as it allows players to play who otherwise would not be able. My team has all the courtesy runners always assigned before the game starts. I did see, all season, sometimes long discussions by opponents who would run. Maybe in the big tournies, where they usually have 2 umps, have the field umpire count to 10 (1000/1 1000/2 etc)after the ball is declared dead, and if the batting team does not have a pinch runner out of the dugout and moving toward the base, declare too late-no runner. This might force teams to pre-plan and buy a little more game time.

Another thought I had was (in the ring tournaments) to go 1-1 count in the prelims and losers bracket play with the time limit. But as long as you stay in the winners bracket go 0-0 with no time limit.

Now for my BIG question. I have seen many good rationals/reasons for going to the 1-1 count.

Uless I missed it, I have not seen a single good supporting
reason for the 0-0 count other than we have always done it.

Could someone please list some strong points or reasons for the 0-0 count and how it makes the game better!

March 1, 2013
swing for the fences
Men's 50
975 posts
Great point gh md like your points too! Since the under 60s want 1and1 why not start with the them and move up in 5 years!
March 1, 2013
cal50
Men's 50
256 posts
Gary & Swing, I could not agree more.
March 1, 2013
SSUSA Staff
1004 posts
Looks like the "Annual 1-1 Debate" exercise will be on the Agenda (again) in late November at the SSUSA Convention Rules Committee sessions. In light of the recent membership polling, the topic may rise to the level of a motion to consider at that time, or it may not. Until (at least) then, it's a 0-0 starting count for everyone.
March 1, 2013
cal50
Men's 50
256 posts
Perhaps you can consider splitting the rule based on age next year?
March 1, 2013
Garocket
Men's 55
114 posts
1-1 is the way to go. I hear players bitching about playing 4-5 games out in the heat. If you add 15 to 20 minutes per game that is like playing an extra game.
Also if you make the games and hour and 1/2 and the last inning is unlimited runs .

Less say the 7th inning starts at 1:26 and 15-20 runs are scored in the open inning you are looking at an 1:50 minute game maybe a two hour game.

But if you play with a 1-1 count I will gaurantee you will get 7 innings in with a 1:10 time limit.

Makes for a much better game, I could live with going to a 1-1 in the 50 and 55 the fisrt year. Then out of jealousy the older teams would want a 1-1 after seeing the younger guys getting 7 innings in about 95% of the time while they are getting 7 innings in about 40% of the time.

I have played the game now for about 40 years and I can tell you after the 1st weeekend you will not know the difference.
March 1, 2013
SSUSA Staff
1004 posts
Although this discussion is either 3 months late or 9 months premature, the next time it may be under consideration would be at the SSUSA Annual Convention Rules Committee sessions in late November. Despite the support for the 1-1 count increasing by only 0.07% over the past six years, it seems to always end up in the Agenda mix! It truly is the "Harold Stassen" of issues!
March 1, 2013
swing for the fences
Men's 50
975 posts
Come on Dave, without G19 on the board we have to have something to get the juices flowing! :-)
March 1, 2013
swing for the fences
Men's 50
975 posts
BTW I heard if we don't go to the 1 and 1 count we will loose our Firemen, Schoolteachers and Police! :-)
March 2, 2013
Jawood
Men's 50
784 posts
Good points, Garocket, although the part about the older teams seeing how the 1 and 1 count would pretty much get 7 innings in every time, still wouldn't convince the older teams that this is the way to go. They are set in their ways. Only time will make that happen, and it will eventually.
March 2, 2013
the wood
1071 posts
Harold Stassen? Wow! Not that's one for the ages. :-)
BW
March 2, 2013
SSUSA Staff
1004 posts


March 2, 2013
Mulewhipper
47 posts
Now that is Hilarious SSUSA Staff!!

Love it!
March 2, 2013
swing for the fences
Men's 50
975 posts
Dave, Looks Like the BW on to you.. ;) Love the count down!
March 2, 2013
garyheifner
334 posts
SSUSA Staff

I know the next vote is a year away. Don't care about that. I think you guys told me last year that the California teams ,especially, really prefer 0-0. As you have seen from my posts over the years, I am a strong advocate of 1-1.

Could someone please post a strong case for the 0-0 and win me over.
March 2, 2013
Tim Millette
465 posts
There are many choices for the guys that want 1-1.

Actually 0-0 is the minority when it comes to associations that are or soon will be scheduling senior World events.

In NorCal you can play most of your events 1-1 with the many NSA AWS senior events.

A lot of those events are also one day tourneys...which will grow in popularity with the younger senior age groups.

As an example...our team is scheduled to play 15 senior tourneys this season...10 of them are 1-1 tourneys.
March 3, 2013
BruceinGa
Men's 60
2581 posts
I played in a GSA tournament yesterday, 1-1 count, 1 hr, next hr out, next hr inning out.60 minutes per game. Of our 5 games, only one went 7 innings. None of the games were high scoring, most 12-18 runs for each side.
I guess the 1-1 doesn't work that well, maybe we should ask for starting with 2-2 and 45 minute time limits (tongue in cheek).
March 3, 2013
the wood
1071 posts
Gary,
That's sort of like a republican asking a democrat to 'win him/her over' after the Nov 2012 election. As you stated, you 'are a strong advocate'... you're not likely to change your views.
The difference in voter percentage was roughly 10% (55 to 45, or so)and clearly the proponents of the 1-1 count didn't make as good a case for it as they felt. IMO, this is because the Victor Vagues and Nebulous Neds offered little more than anecdotal dialogue. It takes more than passion. As SSUSA has pointed out, the difference in voter position has changed less than 1% since the previous vote.
Why was Mitt Romney defeated? Wasn't it because the GOP's campaign did not reach enough voter niches? What is the GOP planniong to do differently for 2016? I don't know exactly but I'll bet the farm that it will change its underlying position.
If I were you (or any of the other 1-1 proponents) I'd look for ways to make it more salient. Being critical of the opponents hasn't worked.
BW
March 3, 2013
Omar Khayyam
957 posts
the wood, good point about criticism having little effect. I play in a league where about 85 guys play on tournament teams. Of those older than 60, I have yet to talk with a tournament player who preferred 1-1 over 0-0. Various reasons, but when the issue was hotter last year, they all were happy with the current count and saw no reason to change to 1-1.

Then, for those who read this forum, came the charges of "old fogeys", "bullheaded", "resistant to change", "illogical", "not wanting to get in 7 innings", etc. And you know what? That kind of criticism had its effect. The effect? No change! Guys are still happy with the 0-0 count, and if anything, have dug in their heels a little bit more about changing.

You can even call it "constructive criticism", as we tried to term it as parents with our kids, but people just seem to get their backs up when criticized. Unless a person is willing to listen, or even invite criticism (from a coach, for example), they are unlikely to change.
March 3, 2013
Tim Millette
465 posts
I don't think the 1-1 is of as much importance as what some might be feeling about ssusa.

I can only speak for myself but.....as I see this issue......it looks obvious that ssusa has results that show the younger guys want 1-1 yet they don't seem to care about trying to figure out a way to give it to them.

I thought the round robin games being 1-1 if both teams agreed would have been a good test.

Like I have said before.....many other NEW Associations are growing the competition pool for our senior dollars.

The old school senior softball associations...spa, ssusa need to wake up and realize that the NSA, ASA, USSSA, and AWS's are national programs that will not be going away.

When your in competition for your customer.....the first thing you need to do is make sure your customer knows you value their business, in my mind...value starts with listening.....and giving them what they need/want.

1-1 is just the beginning....
March 3, 2013
dMON
21 posts
Bruce,
Now there is a HR rule I have not thought about that could be appropriate for any classification.
1 HR/inning, then an out. Much easier to keep up with, too.
Has that ever been proposed before?
That could be a real game-changer.
I like it....
March 3, 2013
SSUSA Staff
1004 posts
The SSUSA membership has spoken definitively on the 1-1 issue. They prefer, by almost 10 percentage points nationally, retention of the 0-0 count, and that preference is virtually identical to the same results from six years ago. If/when that changes, it will influence any changes that may be made in the global set of playing rules.

One could argue there is no better measure of being responsive to the membership than by giving them what they want on this issue. That's been done. Some here may find themselves in the minority of a limited number of age groups and/or geographic regions, but the national majority has spoken and we listened carefully.

Please refer to the countdown clock above for the next time this issue may (or may not) be formally considered by the SSUSA Rules Committee.

March 3, 2013
BruceinGa
Men's 60
2581 posts
Staff, I think it's all about how the question about 1-1 was phrased. Was it presented as "Should SSUSA keep the 1-1 count to assure tournaments be kept on schedule?" Maybe the question should have been "What rules should be instituted to keep games on schedule?" My suggestion to the second would have been change game duration to 1 hr, 30 minutes then play one more inning. Also, schedule games on the bracket to 2 hrs between games.
It may not be necessary to go to 1 hr, 30 min but hopefully you can see what I mean.

:)
March 3, 2013
OZZIE#8
12 posts
1-1 Count is fine with me.Either way i want at least 1:20 to 1:30 if there must be a time limit.
I know for sure DCPETE is right about rather playing at 8pm than 8am.
Not even a discussion is needed about that.
March 3, 2013
swing for the fences
Men's 50
975 posts
ok Staff screw the 1 and 1 extend the game ten minutes... I'm fine with 0 and 0!
March 3, 2013
taits
Men's 65
4245 posts
Bruce, god one.
With run limits and all there shouldn't be a problem with getting in 7 innings with 1 hr 30 minutes but even 1-20 is better than 60 minutes.
Should not take longer that 10-15 minutes to begin a new game unless your doing field prep between one or another.
As was mentioned teams should be ready to take the fields when game is over which most are.
Start count 0-0 has my vote.
March 3, 2013
GI
Men's 50
157 posts
For the record thank God for Terry Dave Fran and George and rest of staff. I turned 60 today and look forward to playing ball many more years if God permits. Just walked in from tournament in Bullhead Nevada. I had a wonderful time, My first time playing in this event. I am fine to wait 9 more months for any chance to consider changing to 1-1 count but have to tell you I loved playing 1-1 count with no pitch to waste this past weeknd. We started several games early including last one today and realy enjoyed as a pitcher and hitter the count. Guys were ready to play and hit when at the plate and enjoyed it every time they looked at first strike making it important to swing at second stike and keep it fair. Wow games moved fast and really liked the pace and energy. either way 0-0 or 1-1 I will continue to support Senior Softball with Terry and gang but really enjoyed playing these rules this weekend.Much more action and no problem playing 7 innings every game except for run rule in a game. See many of you in PHX in two weeks for Spring training R. Siefman tournament. PS Iagree teams need to be ready, should play and be prepared on off the field to help get 7 innings in more often. Bless all of you and enjoy our game no matter what the rules. GI
March 3, 2013
swing for the fences
Men's 50
975 posts
Glad you got a chance to see what we have been preaching GI pace of the game is so much better..
March 3, 2013
GI
Men's 50
157 posts
I got scared when I saw the time program on site today, I thought some of my teammates from CJS Express had put this in to show how long it will tske me to run all fourbases in a game for a home run.,, HAA. If I work it right I can reach plate in time for ining to finish. Let's play 6 and have some fun guys. Life is short, enjoy the gift God has given you, great seeing many at the park past few days. Someone asked if I was Webbie. I assured them he hits the ball 150 over fense and plays outfield unlike me who is at pitchers mound with helmet- jumping around. Hugs GI
March 3, 2013
GI
Men's 50
157 posts
Be cool guysl Play the game untill it is changesd. I hate major league rule letting pitchers hold a bat at the plate and try to look like they know what they are doing at plate.National League vs America leange I want to keep game o=positive and put guys out there who can compete.Keep thwe DH and play the game
March 5, 2013
Corky
Men's 55
444 posts
One other issue that get's me PO'd.....run rules on games with time limits, creates games where you may ever see the OPEN INNING...that should never happen...1 and 1 should speed the game up and allow for the open inning....I can't count on 2 hands how many times we put up big #'s in the open to come from behind to win. That's a rush......Was never so PO'd to have a game called on time limit, down 10 and not given the chance for an open inning. My 2 cents.
March 6, 2013
swing for the fences
Men's 50
975 posts
I didn't know you could not get an open inning Corky...all last year we had an open inning... umpires called it when they thought time was running out all year, last year!
March 6, 2013
Omar Khayyam
957 posts
Corky, did the umpire admit his mistake? We had only one game in the last three years where the umpire didn't watch the clock, had been getting pressure from the TD to keep the games moving, and to both team's surprise, declared that time had run out in the 6th inning, without an open inning! Both teams objected, including the team that was ahead, and after a discussion, the umpire admitted his mistake, and allowed us to play the open inning. We were behind, and still didn't catch up, but we really admired the sportsmanship of the other team to play on, risking a win.

Are you playing in tournaments where the time limit is so rigid that an ump would call time in the middle of an inning because time had expired? Sounds more like basketball than softball.
March 7, 2013
Corky
Men's 55
444 posts
Without mentioning the teams.. I'll just say it was a large tournament in Ohio(SPA). We argued because we were behind,,,,,,,the other team said nothing of course because it was hot and they were ahead. As I discussed the absence of the open inning with the umpire, he brought out a sheet of TD's rules that were to overide the sponsoring Associations rules. And NO Omar he claimed he made no mistake. Lesson learned......read all the material in the Mgrs. packet and voice concerns before the tournament begins. The way we handle it in our leagues is to have the umpire anounce (with 10 min. to go) that we will finish this inning and go to the open. Heck I wouldn't have minded if they flip flopped in the open to save time....but that's just another argument waiting to happen. "Keep on Playin"
March 7, 2013
SSUSA Staff
1004 posts
SSUSA has had a few instances where a Major+ game ended under the Mercy Rule without an open inning, but only in a very narrowly defined set of circumstances ...

Run rule was "20 after 4 / 15 after 5" (2012 rules);
Runs per -inning at bat was nine (2012 Rules);
In the top of the 5th inning, Visitor went up by 25 runs and was still batting;
Time had not yet expired to trigger the 6th inning as open; and
Umpire (correctly in our view) called the game because even if the Home team got "their 9" in the bottom of the 5th, they still would have been behind by 16, which met the mercy rule criteria of "15 after 5"

This is a rare occurrence, but it can happen with the rule properly applied to end the game prior to the Open inning. The umpires were on top of these and none of the affected teams voiced an objection.

March 7, 2013
Omar Khayyam
957 posts
Down by 25 in the fifth and the hot team still at bat?! I'd say that both teams would be embarrassed to continue, and the ump's decision would let them both gracefully (and gratefully) exit.
March 7, 2013
Corky
Men's 55
444 posts
(For SSUSA Staff) I know you can't answer for SPA.....but... do you review and OK all local TD's rules that differ from what the SSUSA rule book states? Your scenario IS rare, as you stated, but a more common scenario would be aroung 12 to 15 after 5, times up and no open inning has been played?...Game called.. THIS REALLY HAPPENED(at a qualifier)....BUT this was the real good one.....TD rules stated 20 runs after 3, 15 after 4 or 10 after 5 as a RR limit. Since the situation never came up, nobody said anything. I was hoping someone would score 20 in 3. ;}










March 7, 2013
SSUSA Staff
1004 posts
Corky - Honest answer is that we only find out about that sort of rare occurrence after the tournament. Our formal agreement with any independent T.D. running a qualifier under SSUSA sanction is that they are required to run it in complete compliance with our Rulebook. As such, we have never pre-approved "local T.D. Ground Rules" for a qualifier. It is mandatory, in our view, that all qualifiers run under complete consistency with the SSUSA Rulebook so that all teams qualifying a roster are evaluated under the same criteria. This is fundamental in our efforts to have each and every qualified team in the "right spot" for the qualifying roster events: The Easter/Western Nationals, World Masters Championships and Tournament of Champions.

In theory, an event like you describe should never occur, but it does on rare occasions. In 2012, one (not to be named) qualifier T.D. decided to shorten the game time limits with the presumed intent to fit the games into the time available at the facility. The SSUSA Home Office did not learn of it until this Message Board lit up in (appropriate) complaint about what happened. After consulting with the T.D., we are very confident that specific qualifier won't experience deviation from our Rulebook again.

With respect to this being a recurring problem from year to year, we will take the qualifier back "in house", staffing it with Home Office personnel rather than the independent T.D. The best example of the application of this policy is the Brickyard Classic in Indianapolis, which we staff each May from Sacramento.

March 11, 2013
the answer
Men's 55
104 posts
the 1 -1 count is a no brainer..all the league s both young and old play it here in pa and nj..some give an extra foul with 2 strikes which might be a good idea..saves 15min at least per game..better action in the field too as everyone must be on their toes
March 11, 2013
swing for the fences
Men's 50
975 posts
We just played in North cal this weekend, my team won the tourney, I batted 3rd.. zero zero count.. I got three ABs in 3 out of the 6 games... I don't know about everyone else but I can't stand getting 3 freaking ABs! one of the games our coach decided to flip to home team because we were up 10 runs.. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR play defense twice for one less AB.. Yes, I vote more ABs and less BS window shopping for the one on a Tee!IMO
March 12, 2013
Corky
Men's 55
444 posts
Thanks Staff.......I Umpired (the 65's n 70's)and played 55's in the Brickyard last year and was glad to see Dave Dowell in town to oversee the tournament. Wish other assoc. would follow your lead.
Sign-in to reply or add to a discussion or post your own message and start a new discussion. If you don't have a message board account, please register for a free nickname. It will only take a moment.
Senior Softball-USA
Phone: (916) 326-5303
Fax: (916) 326-5304
2701 K Street, Suite 101A
Sacramento, CA 95816
Send us e-mail
Senior Softball-USA is dedicated to informing and uniting the Senior Softball Players of America and the World. Senior Softball-USA sanctions tournaments and championships, registers players, writes the rulebook, publishes Senior Softball-USA News, hosts International Softball Tours and promotes Senior Softball throughout the world. More than 1.5 million men and women over 40 play Senior Softball in the United States today. »SSUSA History  »Privacy policy

Follow us on Facebook

Partners