EmptyMessage board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 0 members ; 7 anonymousDiscussion: SSUSA Rules Committee 2009 • Supplemental Information
| Posted | Discussion |
| Dec. 8 SSUSA Staff 3505 posts | SSUSA Rules Committee 2009 • Supplemental Information For the purpose of further clarification, staff is providing this supplemental information in the same order as the Rules Committee considered the specific items. • ISSUES CONSIDERED • The Rules Committee met in an open session Wednesday afternoon, December 2, 2009, for 2½ hours. There were nearly two dozen in the meeting room, all of whom are listed at the bottom of the initial post by the committee. Anyone wishing to comment was heard as they presented issues for inclusion on the agenda. The Chairman added all 'new' items to the Thursday agenda and had previously incorporated items that had been mentioned in e-mails, other written correspondence and several Message Board threads. • VOTING COMMITTEE & PROCEDURES • The voting members of the committee met for another five hours on Thursday, December 3, 2009. The initial intent was for only the voting members to discuss, debate and vote on the agenda items. However, on multiple occasions the committe sought, and received, valuable specific input and comment from others attending the Thursday open session. On all issues voted, a roll call record, member by member, was kept. The 7-member voting committee is comprised of organizational officers that each have considerable experience with slowpitch softball as players, administrators, tournament directors, and/or umpires and UIC's. __________ • RETRIEVING HOME RUN SOFTBALLS • This rule (§9.3) has been in the book since the first publication in the 1990's. Changing the third word from "may" to "shall" removes any ambiguity as to the rule's intent. Teams hitting Home Runs have a rule-based obligation to assist in retrieving those balls and returning them to the umpire. • WOMEN'S RULES CONFORMANCE • The Men's and Women's rules were merged into a single, non-gender specific set of rules rather than as separate sections. CLARIFICATION: The committee failed to note in its initial report that the Women's roster composition rules will NOT be conformed to the Men's rules. Geographic rules for the Women will remain UNCHANGED for the Senior divisions (ages 50+ and older). • BATTER'S BOX ISSUES • This topic was added to the agenda based on a petition received by the SSUSA asking to increase the size to 4' x 8' and in response to a recent Message Board thread on the existing rules for 'in or out' of the box. The discussion and resultant decisions are a compromise of those two. The batter's box size is not changed, but batters are given a bit more latitude, and space, within which they may take their pre-pitch stance. • ILLEGAL BAT RULES • This topic was added to the agenda in direct response to an illegal bat incident at the 2009 Winter Worlds in Las Vegas. The incident made it apparent that the previous penalties and procedures were inadequate in proportion to the severity of the offense. • PITCHER PROTECTION RULE REPEALED • The Rule was repealed because the prior rule did NOT protect the pitcher, but merely prescribed a penalty on the batter following the incidence of a pitcher being hit by a batted ball while in a specific area of the field. The judgment call aspect of the prior rule, although simply written with only three components, proved to be too inconsistent in its application. The entire committee and all of the attending public members in both sessions concluded there are only three ways to 'protect' a pitcher: [1] Use of a screen; [2] Use of a pitching machine; or [3] Use of safety equipment, including, but not limited to, head and face protective gear, a chest protector and leg/shin guards. The committee and attendees quickly and unanimously concluded the ONLY viable 'protection' theory would evolve from the latter. Throughout the extensive discussion prior to the vote on the motion, the debate was with respect to whether or not such protective gear should be suggested or mandated. Also unstated in the initial post on Friday is the fact that pitching under the current technological environment of the bat and ball combination (more on that below) has an inherent assumption of risk factor. Accordingly: IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED FOR ANY PLAYER ELECTING TO PLAY THE POSITION OF PITCHER TO DO SO ONLY WHILE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY EQUIPMENT HE/SHE DEEMS APPROPRIATE IN RECOGNITION OF THOSE INHERENT AND ASSUMED RISKS. • MIDDLE NO-HIT ZONE • Following the repeal of the PPR, a lengthy general discussion ensued about what should be done, if anything, to address concerns about balls hit up the middle under the current bat/ball technology combination. During this discussion it became apparent that the principal objections to the prior PPR rule were: » The requirement of the pitcher being hit; and » The inconsistent application of the 'reasonable defensive play' judgment call flowing from that occurrence. Addressing those two issues, a motion was made to create the Middle No-Hit Zone. Absent from this proposed rule is a requirement the pitcher be hit, or even be IN the zone. There also had to be as simple a zone definition as possible incorporated. The Zone is defined as the width of the pitching rubber to approximately the height of the pitcher, a call that will be no more difficult to make than a fair/foul call on a ball hit down the line. The motion included a progressive penalty structure, with the first incident being a team warning, the second being a dead ball out and third and subsequent incidents being a player ejection. The progressive penalty proposal was offered to allow a non-punitive handling of a potentially accidental first occurrence. That motion failed on a 4-3 vote. An immediately following motion to make any incident a dead ball out passed by the same 4-3 vote, with the previous 'no' voters voting 'yes' this time. There was very little debate, which had been adequately covered in the initial motion discussion. • MAJOR+ HOME RUN LIMIT AMENDMENT • A motion was made to conform the maximum home run limits for the Major+ division of all age groups to ten (10). Last year's change to maximum limits significantly raised those maximums for all levels of play except the AA Division. The reasons and intent for the changes last year included: » A belief that Major+ and Major rated team participation at the larger SSUSA events such as the World Championships, Rock 'n Reno and the Winter World and National Championships would increase over prior year(s). This proved to be true; » The easier detection of power laden teams, at all levels of play, for purposes of rating change evaluations; » To encourage teams that desired to hit more home runs to either move up in rating voluntarily or be less resistant to an involuntary rating increases; and » That maximum home run limits, while achievable in theory, would seldom be reached in actual experience, leading to a more rounded and competitive game of softball instead of a simple progression of home run derby 'singles'. This also proved to be true. Extensive discussion on this motion included four possible alternative options: 1. Simple approval or rejection of a conforming ten (10) home run limit for the 55+ and older Major+ age groups; 2. Reversion to the lesser prior year maximums with a progressive structure treating excess home runs as 'singles'; 3. Reversion to the lesser prior year maximums with a progressive structure treating excess home runs as 'outs', unless and until the opponent was equal in the home run count after the maximum had been reached; or 4. Retention of the current home run maximums with excess home runs treated as a 'foul ball'. Batters with less than two strikes at the time would have another chance (or two) to put the ball in play. None of the latter three options received enough support to result in a viable motion to amend. The discussion was lengthy and incorporated recognition of correspondence received pre-convention, as noted from the small minority of the membership that posts to this Message Board and specific requested comment from attending observers. Several conceptual realities emerged over time: » The 2008 progressive rule should NOT be reinstated to allow over limit home runs to be deemed 'singles'; » The popular phrase 'home runs as outs' is inaccurate, being more appropriately 'excess home runs after very generous, but seldom reached, maximum allowances are outs'. One participant in the discussion, a 60-Major+/Major player, stated that his team had played 46 games under the 2009 rules and in 92 opportunities, only twice, once by his team and once by an opponent, was the home run maximum even reached, and it was not exceeded. In his analysis, reaching the home run limit approximately 2% of the time was acceptable; » Teams in the lower (AAA and AA) divisions that exceed the maximum home run allowances regularly and by significant amounts are more than likely under-rated; » There is NO determinable correlation between the current home run rules and the incidence of pitchers being struck by a batted ball, in or out of the pitching box. In fact, with teams seldom reaching the home run maximums, more pitchers were hit BEFORE those limits were reached than after the relatively few occurrences where the limit was reached. Public testimony from three participants also stated they had heard players specifically express an intention to 'go middle' to send a message to SSUSA that the maximum home run limits and/or the (former) PPR rule should be repealed; » Participation was up in the Major+ and Major Divisions and the games and tournaments were more competitive; » Competition across all ages and divisions was more balanced, with the only notable 2009 rules change being the new home run limits. Invitations earned to the 2010 Tournament of Champions increased over 27% from 2008 (186) to 2009 (237) despite there being one less qualifying tournament in 2009. More teams won major events and less teams were multiple event winners. » The final conclusion was 'If it isn't broken, don't fix it'. • REGION CHANGE FOR CALIFORNIA & FLORIDA • The prior posting on the Rules Committee activity inadvertently omitted significant relevant information regarding this early announcement about the 2011 playing season for California and Florida teams. The SSUSA is undertaking a thorough statistical analysis of where its players reside, at all ages and levels of play. The goal is to acquire the data supporting the general abandonment of the 'home/bordering states' rules in favor of a 'regions' approach to player eligibility for constituting the roster for any specific team. Historically, SSUSA operated for years on a 'regions' basis, but several years ago implemented the 'home/bordering states' approach in concert with the then-members of the Senior Softball Summit. Under the former SSUSA 'regions' approach, the states of (Northern) California, (Southern) California, Florida and Texas were defined as their own closed 'regions'. The Summit goal was to create uniform boundary rules so that all Summit member organizations would have the same roster rules, thereby creating identical rosters for teams participating across differing association tournaments. These standard roster rules never came into application simultaneously because each association created 'exceptions', all of which made sense to them and were acceptable to the participating teams. It is now apparent the 'home/bordering states' approach unduly inhibits teams in certain states from being able to draw from a sufficient number of players within the current geographic boundaries to build the type of team they would like. Teams from smaller states, geographically or in population, or both, are disadvantaged over many larger states. Most notable are many smaller states in the Northeast and on the Eastern seaboard. The upper Midwest and Plains states players and teams are also similarly disadvantaged too frequently. The SSUSA intends to re-establish multi-state regions, potentially as soon as the 2011 playing season, somewhat analogous, but not identical to, the 'Clubs and Leagues' regions currently defined on this web site. Regional population density, number and ratings of existing teams, logical state combinations and similar criteria will be the components of this analysis leading to change. California and Florida will be their own regions, and the balance of the regions structure will be determined as quickly as is feasible. We expect the most notable effect of this change will be more teams participating in the higher skill level ratings. • 40-MASTERS REGION RULES • The Men's and Women's 40-Masters teams are now being rated instead of being 'open' divisions. As such, these programs will now be subject to the same regional rules (as amended by the above discussion) for roster composition as all other ages having ratings levels. |
