Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 141 anonymousDiscussion: SSUSA Rules Committee Meeting
| Posted | Discussion |
| Dec. 6, 2014 JamesLG 420 posts | SSUSA Rules Committee Meeting Hi All: First off I want to say I have a lot of respect for all the folks who run SSUSA. The game and this organization mean a lot to me but when I read the minutes of the rules committee meeting I was a little bit in shock. Is that it or is there parts 2, 3, and 4 to follow? Thank You: James |
| Dec. 6, 2014 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | What do you expect.. A full reconstruction of the wheel... I don't think there is that much to go over after X amount of years running this thing SSUSA.. there are a few things brought up every year and sometimes the same things, however each year that goes by there are fewer things that need to be changed.. hence shorter minutes.. |
| Dec. 6, 2014 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | James, did you see all four pages? |
| Dec. 7, 2014 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Interesting minutes and a shame for some who had foresight for some of the ideas to be concerned about in the gaming rule changes. Too bad they did not attend ( or word their concern to meed the "motion" standard and hope for a 2nd on it. Enabling a vote as it were. IMO there will be some areas of argument in the major arena this coming year especially the 70's. As for the 'teams that need not qualify' part it seems sexist to the extent that it is to gather more teams to the events which is good for the bottom $, as well as teams that might not normally go but that could well be true for many mens teams as well. Would be nice to have seen roll call votes on these. Will be an interesting year for the major divisions. |
| Dec. 7, 2014 Big Mike 84 posts | where can I find a copy of the minutes? |
| Dec. 7, 2014 SSUSA Staff 3483 posts | The Rules Committee exists to review the "State of the Game" annually and to implement rule changes only when necessary ... For those who may think the measure of the Committee's efforts and productivity are defined by the number of changes made, you will be disappointed this year ... The Committee likes the "State of the Game" and believes it is structured in the overall best interests of the teams, consistent with acceptable implications for the SSUSA ... Here are a few other random observations that may assist in understanding the process ... • The Chairman allowed public participation in ALL sessions, including the "working sessions", where they were not allowed to vote ... This is a major change from prior years, allowing the public attendees to be participants rather than merely observers, and their contributions were insightful and appreciated ... • The Committee was given a complete set (over 30 items) of all correspondence received by conventional mail or by email, including items that were received as late as Tuesday evening ... The very first convention session, scheduled to be an open forum was, by request, converted to the first Rules Committee public session, allowing an additional three hours for this function ... • Every piece of correspondence was reviewed and discussed in detail in an open environment (over six hours in the first two sessions) to evaluate those issues and to determine of there was a reasonable chance that a rule change could pass ... If Committee member(s) believed that to be a possibility, they made motions, which were seconded or not, and if they didn't or weren't, it was on to the next issue ... • The Committee believes that rules should be consistent across all ages and divisions of play (Exceptions: Number of defensive players allowed for age 65+ and older and home runs allowed by rating level) ... Accordingly, unless a proposal enjoyed global application across ages and divisions, its chances of formal voting consideration were greatly diminished ... • There were the "usual suspect" issues that show up every year (most notably the 1-1 count and Home Run rules) ... In the Committee's view, there was not enough new insight from the correspondence, the observations of Tournament and Field Directors, or the on-site commentary to mandate changes in these areas ... The "1-1 count" remains an age/region bias issue, and the most recent survey showed an insignificant increase in support over the prior six years (0.1% trending up, meaning that for each 1,000 people who responded, only one more vote went the way of favoring the 1-1) ... Eliminating the DBO's as a home run issue continues to have support from a small number of those commenting, exclusively from Major+ players ... In both of these issues, there was equally compelling correspondence against making any changes ... __________ taits - The "Need Not Qualify" provision applies ONLY to ages and/or divisions that do not have ratings levels ... The 75+ and 80+ are now rated, the 85+ is new and has only one level, and the senior women (50+ and older) do not have ratings ... This was merely a technical amendment ... The membership of the Committee is disclosed in the Minutes, but there is no value (other than to satisfy purely personal curiosity) to either keeping or publishing roll calls on each and every matter decided ... |
| Dec. 7, 2014 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Just my observations. Curiosity on vote nays and abstention. Just seems you actually treat men and women differently while playing the same game (ratings). As I read the info, I felt it was the best meeting that has been conducted. Voting members in attendance I read and are as you say elsewhere. big mike last line, bottom of post SSAUS made for it. Going to be a long cold stretch for many before they travel to FL for the TOC. Stay healthy. |
