EmptyMessage board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 4 members: Eazy, JohnO28, Rookies 40, TheBop; 12 anonymousDiscussion: Major Plus Task Force on PPR
| Posted | Discussion |
| March 19 JohnBob Men's 65 256 posts | On a post I put on this board titled For Those Who Pitch I addressed the fact that the Pitcher has to remain in box when hit for DBO to be called. My argument mainly is most pitch and back sraight back and are out of box when ball is hit, NO protection. I also ask if anyone associated with senior ball would have a problem if the words were changed to protect pitcher who backs straight back out of box,I feel this happens on at least half of the pitches in a senior game. There were over 1000 views on this subject and not one post was against this. SSUSA Staff did respond to my post saying that when rule was first put in the Pitcher was protected no matter where he was when hit but was changed by the SOLE recomendation of M+ task force {sole was underlined} saying that you felt that it was unfair to the batter if pitcher is running into line of fire. I can see your reasoning but think you were cocerned about a Pitcher going right or left out of side of box instead of stright back, As for the side of box you could say Pitcher would have to be in contact with box for DBO to be called,if one pitches and runs toward 3rd or 1st base then I can see no protection. I appeal to this Task Force to change the wording to protect Pitchers mainly that back out of box. This would also make it a lot easier on Umpire's in making this call. Thanks |
| March 19 4x4 Men's 65 601 posts | Wood? Gary? Audie? I think I recall it was voted down. There would be NO PPR rule. They didn't want any part of it. |
| March 19 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | The rule won't really protect the pitcher. And it comes from the 40 and over game which is a DIFFERENT game than our game, senior softball. Either SSUSA will rise to the occasion which is in our and their best interest or they won't. Their being seen as arbitrary, distant, arrogant and unconnected with us the body/soul of senior ball regarding both the PPR and HR's as outs and they have a chance to show this to be wrong. Actions speak louder than words. |
| March 19 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | As far as I can tell SSUSA is neither a democracy, a publicly-held corporation, a governmental agency, or the only game in town. Hence, they are completely free to do whatever they want so long as it is not in violation of any laws of the land. And I don't think the PPR qualifies as a violation. Good God, you have been heard (ad nauseum) and apparently disregarded |
| March 19 JohnBob Men's 65 256 posts | Ok Guys I don't like the rule either but I had the understanding that SSUSA had the PPR till December and then it will be reveiwed.If this is true I would like to see the wording changed because very few pitch and remain in box. |
| March 19 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | JB That's OK but they will reap what they sew. Those mistakes will endanger pitcher/infielders more than last year and SSUSA will be held accountable. |
| March 19 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Or what they SOW, you dunce! :( |
| March 19 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | By the way, who is forcing any pitcher to play under that rule if they don't like it? |
| March 19 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | As it relates to the Major Plus Task Force and the PPR: We polled the M+ managers and those that responded were not overly moved by this rule, pro or con... i.e. this means that the vote was split right down the middle (50/50) on whether to keep it or not. Remember that this took place last summer... the point being that the PPR (version # 1) was already in place and had been since January of 2008. Therefore, the M+ Task Force recommended no change since we didn't see an overriding trend. The Task Force's length of service was a finite period which ended last summer as well. At its most formidable moment, it was merely an advisory committee, not one with actual powers. The bottom line is that we no longer have ANY clout or meaningful input... even if we did, the folks to whom our recommendations would be presented have already made their feelings known. Having stated all of this, there is nothing to prevent those of you with strong feelings from appearing in Nashville later this year... you could demonstrate your passion at the SSUSA rules committee meeting. BW |
| March 19 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | JohnBob - great post. I've learned in my professional life that those making rules have a dilemma. Issues are not black and white, solutions won't and can't please everyone, etc. The best strategy, then, is to create rules that do the most good for the most amount of people. I was on the M+ task force last year and recall voting to leave the rule in place alone. This year I've been a vocal critic of the concept that this rule actually protects pitchers. I think all would recognize that by itself, it can't. It may, however, reduce risk to a degree by having hitters think twice that a shot up the middle might result in a DBO. No actual protection, but possibly less occurence of risk. For pitchers, that is not a bad outcome. In five tourneys/25 games we've played this year, the rule honestly hasn't made much difference. Umps do their best, but there is still a judgement element to the call that can frustrate. JohnBob makes a good point about extending the 2-foot wide zone directly back to where pitchers usually are after a pitch. Our pitchers have snagged a few missles just behind the box that would have hurt just as much but weren't DBO's. If SSUSA would add some guidance and encouragement on protective equipment for pitchers(not mandatory) maybe the combination of actions would be sufficiently mitigate risk to pitchers. I can certainly live with this multi-pronged approach for the season. IMHO this would do the most good for the most amount of players. Don Newhard Nighthawks 55 M+ |
| March 19 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | To clarify terminology here the rule is probably not actual "protection" but rather is or should be a "deterrent". Just like laws against murder, rape, arson, assault, etc. don't protect per se, but are to serve as deterrents. So would it serve a purpose if it was truly needed? Yes. Is it needed? Probably not. |
| March 19 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | From the perspective of SSUSA it is probably needed, if not prudent to have a perceived deterrent. They are part of the equation, so such a rule is likely inevitable. Deterrent + protective equipment = risk mitigation. My experience is that the rule hasn't been a factor in games, so the intended outcome is ok by me. Let's play ball! DN |
| March 19 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Tate, how is it "needed"? Risk is always a part of sports, always has been. Shame on anyone who would think of filing any kind of suit because they could not catch the ball. |
| March 20 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | Dirty: In a perfect world, such precaution wouldn't be needed. I agree with your point about risk and wholeheartedly agree with the point about lawsuits filed by anyone voluntarily participating in a sport. In a perfect world,SSUSA wouldn't have to worry about alleged liability. We don't,however, live in that world. We live in world where parents sue Little Leagues when little Josh doesn't make the allstar team, their plus-sized daughter can't be a cheerleader, or the Boy Scouts ask their son to recite something that mentions God. That's the world SSUSA also lives in, whether we like it or not. My point is that with the current PPR, plus information about protective equipment, SSUSA could arguably be making a reasonable effort to promote safety without further adulterating the game. I'd rather deal with the current situation than have screens or pitching machines on the field, or a rule that closes the middle to all batted balls. It's a compromise I can live with. |
| March 20 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | I see what you are saying. |
| March 20 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Hey Don, You are a good person, a very competitor and a good soldier. However, you're good faith is not necessarily answered in kind. The stats don't really exist to suggest that "our" game is out of control or needs radical change. We've all accepted we have to change/compromise but our good will has not been equaled. In Norcal we went through this a couple of years ago. The rush to judgment about the new equipment and all the crippling and mayhem caused had the UN concerned. When challenged we found the reality didn't match the perception. It's not more dangerous to play with good equipment. The stats say we mostly adjust. Slow guys stop playing or get out of the way faster. How do you think they don't get pile ups every 10 seconds on the AutoBahn? Everyone adjusts cause it's fun to go fast. There's no doubt in my mind we've been sold a bill of goods that our game needs radical changes. The PPR and HR's as outs dramatically modify our game unnecessarily and for the worst. That's the issue. We're being pushed and pushed around without real cause. And there's still a lot of us, Don, who don't like the way it feels and don't want to take it, lying down. Again if you look for where all this push has come from and is coming from there's just one or two little guys with self interest behind the curtain driving it all. |
| March 20 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | "einstein", while I agree with a lot of this the reality is: As far as I can tell SSUSA is neither a democracy, a publicly-held corporation, a governmental agency, or the only game in town. Hence, they are completely free to do whatever they want so long as it is not in violation of any laws of the land. And I don't think the PPR qualifies as a violation. Good God, you have been heard (ad nauseum) and apparently disregarded |
| March 20 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Hey Don, It's getting clearer and clearer all the time like things can when you challenge them enough. SSUSA functionally stands for very little. They conduct/values/standards are situational relating to how to maintain control over us to effect their own interests and ends. That's why their unable to enforce anything like the rules of this website with any consistency or regularity. They're defining themselves by not defining themselves which gives them the greater range of potential solutions to any given situation. On paper, this is smart. In reality, in the realm of real men it doesn't work. It has no soul, no character and cannot be recognized in truth by real men and women. I'm sure they'll attempt to kill the messenger but it's they who are in danger of killing us and our sport. |
| March 20 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Wow, are you slow. :( They aren't "killing" or "controlling" anything. Go play wherever you want, or don't play wherever you don't want. Are you the only old guy with a gun being held to his head? |
| March 20 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | Joe: Don't be confused by my most recent comments on the PPR/hitter punishment rule. They were only offered as speculation on why SSUSA wants some sort of deterrent to hitting middle. Like it or not, we are probably stuck with it through this year so it would be nice to understand why. I've stated many times that this rule does not protect pitchers. I also believe the middle is part of the game, when done with skill and no intent to hit the pitcher. If SSUSA stops with the PPR, and leaves the rest of the current game intact, I can live with that compromise. So far, the PPR hasn't impacted our 25 games, but it hasn't protected anybody either. I could do without the DBO HR rule, but that hasn't impacted us much either. I totally agree with your themes of holding SSUSA accountable for their decisions and having more open, inclusive input from the players to drive change. Next year, how about publishing all proposed rule changes iadvance and soliciting comment BEFORE a rule is handed down from Mt. Sacramento? That method was used in the M+ task force. We may not run SSUSA, but we are paying customers that help generate $1million+ revenue each year for them. Some say we can vote with our feet, but I'd like to keep what works and lobby to change what doesn't. To your point, the jury is out on how much they value our input and are willing to respond. Another post is currently covering the double secret probation committee that rates teams. I'll save my comment on that for the appropriate post. Hope to see you on the fields soon, along with the Nor Cal juggernauts like MTC 55 and Old Dawgs 55. We are mighty lonely in Mesquite as the only 55 M+ team. |
| March 20 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Tate, the jury does not appear out anymore at all. Doesn't it seem prettuy obvious to you by now? |
| March 20 Nancy Allen Men's 55 1438 posts | OK, I have worn myself on this rule. I was in the local senior meeting last night and got to listen to all of them vent on this rule. I have yet to hear anyone say that they like it. Yesterday I found a white paper on this site on the rule. If you need a white paper, then perhaps it is a rule that is too controversial. I do know that it is too hard to officiate, and it seems that it was probably the only real problem in Phoenix last year. So as not to pick on my favorite senior softball association too much more, I will share with you the rule that I told the local seniors about that caused more controversy among the group than the PPR. The NSA had rule that started out last year due to the problem with "hot" balls and bats. The way it was last year was that if the batter hit the bat, and it HURT anyone in the infield that the umpire was to grab the bat and ball immediately to be examined. Well, here is the kicker. This year it is any player. So if I hit the ball and hurt an outfielder, the umpire grabs my bat and the ball for inspection, possibly to be shipped off for further analysis. It seems that we are more emotional over our taken bats than a hit pitcher. We could always go to beeper ball. |
| March 20 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | Dirty: Careful, that seems to be exactly what Joe is saying. My personal experience is that SSUSA has listened some to my input, ruled in my favor some, and ruled against me some with some unfathomable illogic. Big picture, decisions are in the hands of very few and aren't inclusive enough of the customers. I try to temper my criticism and realism with optimism. The realist in me thinks the PPR is here to stay this year, so I'm moving on. The optimist is focused on lobbying them for a different approach to implementing change. And finally, the realist/critic accepts the pros and cons of SSUSA and recognizes that in the West, they are the predominant player where I live. SPA isn't out here, and nascent SPA events usually get cancelled in my neck of the woods. NCSSA is a good option 500 miles from home, but I like playing teams from all over. All things considered, I choose to play as much as I can until I can no longer. I choose to deal with the frustrations to compete against the best which are often found at SSUSA events. As always, just MHO. Don Newhard |
| March 20 Mr. Manassas 244 posts | Just a thought...The people in charge are just trying to make the game safer. There is no perfect solution. The answer that pitchers just need to practice more or "armor" up more doesn't make the game any safer. I applaud their efforts evan though i may disagree with some of their rules. |
| March 20 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | Mr.Manassas: Well said, and much more efficiently than me. Nothing's perfect,SSUSA is trying to balance a lot of issues, and they provide me the most opportunity to do what I love, play competitive softball on a national level. Let's play ball! |
| March 20 Lecak Men's 60 1026 posts | Don I'm expecting you guys to behave like Gentleman. We will see you guys next weekend, bring your track shoes and plenty of spare outfielders. |
| March 20 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | Joe: Why change now? Remember to take it easy on your elders, especially the younger Evolutionaries. Our outfielders won't need track shoes, just neck braces for the whiplash watching your bombs sail into the desert. BTW, need a steak? Don |
| March 20 Lecak Men's 60 1026 posts | Don your not familiar with the Mesquite fields I take it. I know field 3 at Pioneer is a baseball diamond LC and RC are over 380'. I believe Hunter field 3 is also. Therefore track shoes and spare outfielders. Where are you guys staying? |
| March 20 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | Actually, the Road Dogs played there in 2005, I remember those fields. You'll have no problem with the 380' power alleys!! We'll just go with the 8 man outfield against you guys. Most of us are at the Casa Blanca. How about you guys? |
| March 20 Lecak Men's 60 1026 posts | Doesn't Dirty need to approve changes like that (8 man OF). I'm driving back and forth daily honestly don't know where the team is staying almost doesn't matter in Mesquite. When we play each other has that split squad kind of feel to it. |
| March 20 Dbax Men's 65 2101 posts | Thread jackers. |
| March 20 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | Drat - busted by the DC 5. I'm in pieces, bits and pieces .... |
| March 20 Dbax Men's 65 2101 posts | Bewitched, I'm glad all over. |
| March 20 Dbax Men's 65 2101 posts | Ask me why. |
| March 20 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | Why, o reigning regent of rock 'n roll trivia? |
| March 20 Dbax Men's 65 2101 posts | "Because" |
| March 20 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | Did you see polythene Pam? |
| March 20 Dbax Men's 65 2101 posts | I did. Where? "The name of the place was I like it like that." |
| March 22 JohnBob Men's 65 256 posts | Thanks for reply The Wood & Tate 22 both members of M+ Task Forse did not know your length of service ended last Summer. Tate22 said we need to create rules that do the most for the most people, I agree and being that most pitch and back out of box the higher ups ought to change the rule or do away with rule all together. Any way lets play ball and you Pitcher's stay in that box where its SAFE. |
