Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 8 members: Arbo, Chas9, Dbax, Mickey C, Natalie, PKRipper, TABLE SETTER 11, cecil; 176 anonymousDiscussion: THAT SURVEY MENTIONED IN RED ABOVE
| Posted | Discussion |
| Dec. 11, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | THAT SURVEY MENTIONED IN RED ABOVE YES, I'M YELLING sorry to a point, BUT ALL OF YOU, need to get the word out to your teams players and MAKE SURE THE MGR DOES THIS by the deadline. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 Brett Men's 55 239 posts | It's not nuch of a survey......three multiple choice answers to one question. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 butch17 Men's 55 412 posts | Brett, It may not be much of a survey but at least they are making an attempt. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | That's 1 reason this is important. If you do not reply they may say: we tried to get some info but no one replied. So how does that make the players appear to be? Not interested. Not even enough to answer one simple question. Says a lot about those who do not at least. imo |
| Dec. 11, 2009 lazer larry Men's 50 95 posts | Managers, step up to the plate and vote this stupid PPR rule down. I hope this is what they are asking about. I'm not a manager so i don't know for sure. Butch let me know if i'm off base. Lazer |
| Dec. 11, 2009 JohnBob Men's 65 256 posts | I agree butch they are trying. Would have been nice to had results before the meetings in Nashville though. Question for staff or anyone,what if survey shows that a large % of manager's that reply are against this middle not hit zone will it be over turned now or will we have to wait till Dec 2010? |
| Dec. 11, 2009 SSUSA Staff 3490 posts | lazer larry and JohnBob - The survey question is not a referendum or vote on whether or not the former PPR / current MNHZ should be retained or repealed. It is a single question regarding the Manager's opinion as to the frequency of pitchers being hit by a batted ball more, about the same or less than in prior years. There is also a comment box should the Manager choose to convey additional information. Depending on the results of the survey, the Rules Committee is within it's authority to re-convene by telephone conference call at any time, as early as next week if appropriate. As of 4:00 PM PST on Friday, December 11, 2009, a little over 35% of the Managers receiving the survey invitation have elected to respond. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 E4/E6 Men's 70 873 posts | Does Staff have an idea about the percentage of managers visiting or reading this site? Or how frequently managers come to this site? Maybe 35% is indicative of the overall percentage. 35% is pretty good for the first few hours after posting I would think. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | Would have been nice to be able to fill out a survey of what we think about some issues BEFORE the convention! |
| Dec. 11, 2009 Al33 Men's 55 183 posts | This is another example of putting the cart before the horse. There was plenty of time to poll the managers about this question and conduct a survey prior to the rules committee getting together and coming up with this change to the PPR rule. Gathering the information before hand even if it might have been a small percentage would've given them some input from the managers/players. An informed decision is always better. The Chiefs don't always have the best answers or ideas. Many times the Indians know what's best for all. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 butch17 Men's 55 412 posts | I hope and wish we all have the same compassion about writing to our congressmen and senators about some of the stupid laws and the way they spend our money as we do about softball rules. Talk about Chiefs and Indians. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 E4/E6 Men's 70 873 posts | Cudos Butch Their email addresses are readily available to us all. We as seniors are now the power in our country, its up to us to make the difference for the younger generation. Lifes real issues make all of this look rather small and unimportant. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 JohnBob Men's 65 256 posts | Thanks SSUSA Staff for your reply good to hear about a possible phone conference. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 GT Men's 60 162 posts | I gave a reply and my opinion on the info they requested. Also gave a reply of my opinion. Need everyone to get hold of a team manager and reply to this question. I see this as a chance to get something changed that we are all hoping for. Lets use this message board in a positive way. Possibly there will be more of this in the future with enough managers responding. Lets not blow this opportunity. GT Houston |
| Dec. 11, 2009 SSUSA Staff 3490 posts | E4/E6 - We have no statistics on how many managers may visit this site without posting messages. However, we do know that of the 'frequent posters' (members who post here more than 5 times per month), they represent about one-half of 1% (0.50%) of the registered SSUSA players, a percentage that is statistically insignificant. This is why a direct e-mail approach to the Managers was selected, to hopefully reach as many of them as possible. The current response rate of about 38.5% as of 8:00 PM PST on Friday is a good 'voter turnout' in some elections and we believe this is a good number for the first day of a six-day survey. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | A step in the right direction of including us, SSUSA but what's the nature of the survey? "The survey question is not a referendum or vote on whether or not the former PPR / current MNHZ should be retained or repealed." Then what is it about? Is it about the balls to be used? There's a rumor going around that SSUSA is considering going to the 52x275 ball this year. Will all the comments and votes by each team be made available to the community at large? I'm glad SSUSA is responding in a way, more toward us, the senior softball community, but how far and for what reason and to what end will become obvious before too long. And we're all beginning making judgments about which tournaments we'll be attending next year. Dave/Terry? You've been using Stote 44x375 balls this year and said you'd use them again. Is this survey about the balls and are you considering going to the 52x275 ball? We need to know, ASAP. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | If you, SSUSA can rule out that you're considering changing the ball from Stote 44x375 balls to 52x275 balls that would help relax us, the senior softball community. Please let us know right away. Thanks. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 butch17 Men's 55 412 posts | Joe, I heard they are using the same ball but dont know for sure. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | They can respond for themselves, Butch. They're reading along and they'll either rule out they're considering a change in bat/ball specs or not. And if they don't respond that means they can't and it will be meaningful to all of us. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | There's a rumor going around that Bill Ruth wants to go to the 275 x 52 ball. Don't kill the messenger, guys. Is there any substance to the rumor? This is a fair and meaningful question in the presence of such a rumor? Dave/Terry? Help us out. |
| Dec. 11, 2009 E4/E6 Men's 70 873 posts | Joe, Why not ask Bill directly and eliminate any misinformation. Confirm or kill any rumors. |
| Dec. 12, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | To reply about the 52\275 balls mentioned by Joe, If you read what was wrote you can get a feel what may be coming, like it or not. ""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."" That should give you all an idea as to their concern lies, i.e., 'assumed risks'. Not the basic game itself, as we know it was or possibly should be. imo I believe I had mentioned those were other choices that could also may have been considered. But by the mere mention of them (bats, balls) I think it could very well be either or possibly both. We all would like it to be as it was, but how may still watch only a BW TV set ?... Bats too evolved, just like everything else. I doubt they will or would revert as far back as wood \ C405 bats but you never know about the balls, given the "ok for use" with some assn's. Time will tell. As for asking Bill directly, that could be like asking Obama... says one thing does another. Do not listen to words but rather deeds. Do not try to interoperate it may really be a different language. I think the next two years will not be the best. Reason: this cloud which hopefully will dissipate soon and the re formatting of regions a year or so away. Not playing Scrooge here, but trying to convey the importance & need to reply to the survey, by the Mgrs. |
| Dec. 12, 2009 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Last I checked, Bill Ruth functionally owns SSUSA and is on the committee that votes and voted for the latest set of stuff. I believe I'm asking him and his reps right now and the clock is running on his answer with every minute taken having distinct meaning. The sooner we get to the bottom of whatever and whoever we are regarding senior softball the better it will be for our community development and growth. There's tons of self interest masquerading as genuine interest in our sport. The market place is moving us like it does almost everywhere else in our society with it's profits first approach to solving all our problems. Why, even I've, been charged as being self interested! And the impertinence, Colonel Beauregard, sir, is almost too much bear!(hey Dennis) I think Scott is right. The next couple of years are going to redefine senior softball and we can either stand by and watch it happen or man up and take part in the process so we all don't end up somewhere else. I guess that's what we're trying/doing with all the debate/arguing and that's all good because sooner or later, the truth of it all will emerge. Can't wait. |
| Dec. 12, 2009 butch17 Men's 55 412 posts | Joe, Maybe you should have went to Nashville. It may or may not have been a help but at least you would have tried in person as there was an open discussion on Wed. Just a thought. |
| Dec. 12, 2009 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Thanks, Butch. I'm not one to turn down the chance to speak my mind about most anything as difficult as that may be to tell. I think SSUSA could know anytime they want what we think and feel by using the site for polling and voting. Software shouldn't be too hard to come up with that could limit discussion and voting on something to members only, one vote to a member and off we go. Some are saying that Nashville and this new survey are just tokens of participation and that they already know what they want to do. Again, don't kill the messenger. But take a look at what others are seeing and saying. It couldn't hurt and could help us all out, a ton. |
| Dec. 12, 2009 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | butch no one would pay his way to go. |
| Dec. 12, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Joe, I believe you were invited to N-ville as was I. You missed the chance. Bob, may be correct. As for the ".... SSUSA could know anytime they want what we think and feel by using the site for polling and voting." I feel you are partially right, but there are only about 100 or so of us on here that post, out of the 15K or so players. Numbers wise, a drop in a large bucket of water, nothing meaningful or a "voice" as it were. I believe Dave was referring to just managers posting being "statistically insignificant". That too isn't many. But a poll with a one time use life would be nice. Only thing there is like when I took SPA's last year and sent it. Shortly after I remembered 2-3 other things I didn't mention or include in it. Those ideas or thoughts got left out. Polls are a good tool if worded right and actually used. Most are not. Their like stats, they can be manipulated through the info gathered or wording if questions are asked. But if the mgrs come through on their part as if seems they are doing so far if could prove to be a very positive tool for future use... hopefully long before decisions are made on the issue(s). Software is all over but so are links to web sites that already have it... I used one when I had my site. But all you do is pen the questions with "choices" given to pick from and add to site. That's what I thought Scott Folden did... ? I doubt the poll is a token gesture, due to the negative remarks for the new version recently used. Still the same, basic troubles and though pitcher "Protection' isn't mentioned, it sure doesn't do it. Only takes away from his job complicates an already complicated rule in the process. Get the word out guys on this one question poll. There has to be around 950 or so teams. so about 600 haven't replied yet. Not good at all. In the words of another, Cheers... Seasons Greetings |
| Dec. 12, 2009 ShaneV Men's 55 393 posts | Here's my response to the survey. I answered the question no more or less pitchers hit in 2009. I then added these comments: Every time I hit a pitcher in 2009 it was unintentional and the result of one or more of the following - 1 fatigue, 2 challenging pitch and/or pitcher, 3 spin or lack of spin on the pitch, 4 two strikes, 5 sun/wind, 6 footing. Further every time I witnessed a pitcher being hit it appeared to be unintentional and simply the result of a lack of control. There are batters who intentionally hit in the vicinity of the pitcher however I don't believe they want to hit "to" the pitcher any more than anyone wants to hit directly at any defensive player on the field, infield or outfield. I believe there is only one way to handle this issue and it is already in the rules, only it's not currently explicit. I believe strongly that any player who hits directly back at the pitcher and appears to have reasonable control of where he hit the ball, should receive a warning for first offense, manager should also be warned and scorekeeper should record the warning. This is the same approach as with any other form of unsportsmanlike conduct that creates unnecessary danger and risk of injury or threat of injury. If that player does so again, ejection. Further if any player makes a comment about buzzing the pitcher, middle is open, etc., the same warning should be issued and recorded. If the origin of the comment cannot be identified, the warning should be issued to the manager. Second similar comment or hit through the middle again with control, ejection. If a second ejection on the same team is done, manager is also ejected, unless one of the ejections already was the manager. In essence this approach is simply an extension of all of the current possible reasons for ejection, as in intentional contact, throwing bats and other dangerous or threatening behavior, as well as contact and other threatening behavior toward umpires and other officials. An occasional out for hitting the pitcher or through a zone is too mild a penalty for this category of behavior. When we exceed the HR limit or foul off with two strikes or let a third strike go we suffer this penalty, yet no danger is created. It's like a $140 ticket for speeding and a $140 ticket for attempting to run over the officer and $140 ticket for running over the officer resulting is his serious injury or death. ShaneV |
| Dec. 13, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | I found 9 teams in NCSSA out of the 130 listed, where they do not list a managers email addy. It's either a phone number or "snail mail" link maybe even no info. I found 4 of those listed in the ratings lists here. Wonder how those w\o email communication will be handled ? There was one other team I know the mgr does not have a PC but uses someone else's addy. Given the 950 teams, I'd guess there could well be many in the older age divisions. I say that because 4 of the 9, found were 70's, 2 @ 65, and 2 @ 55 and 1 @ 50. That's a good percentage just here. And not all the teams in NCSSA attend any of the SSUSA events. |
| Dec. 13, 2009 LP 317 posts | remember 5or 6 years back when ultra 2's were banned from somes assoc's but ssusa let you hit with them and ssusa tournaments grew in size. a couple of years went by and for the other assoc's to keep from losing more teams let the ultras and other bats back in. this rule about PPR mat cause the tide to go the other way to assoc's that dont have that rule, time will tell. |
| Dec. 13, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | LP, Yes, and I think when the dust settles on the "ball" the effect will be the same. Depending on how they re regionalize the assn will have a huge impact as well. History repeats itself even in softball. Somewhere there was mention by one or more about those in charge maybe; congressmen, trains or something, (I didn't search for it) basically the leaders or heads running the show. They take the blame as well as the glory for all that goes on. In that light, dim as it is, there are those who help along the way, do the work and those who participate. Not unlike corporation leaders at the top, who get the big bucks make the decisions use the pecking order and the bottom rungs or the workers are the ones who suffer and lost in the shuffle. The top stays in place...DAH. No wonder the car companies & so many others went belly up. Never listened to the workers or let them get involved in adjustments to stay on track. Greed also had it's part. Two years minimum. Won't be too good in that time I fear, but rather sort of a back and fourth adjustment period. Big part is not many participate on here so they can get a better feel on player feelings. If they did it would be "fun" keeping up with all the threads, not really, but at least comments on real issues might be addressed by tournament players from all over and reach the eyes of at least one at the top who is concerned. Harsh words here..Let us hope players are considered more than a meal ticket.... But I know most actually play as well, when they can. |
| Dec. 13, 2009 Player25 Men's 55 50 posts | ShaneV, I can appreciate the step form of penalty. The problem I have is the pitcher could be dead and the player/team gets a warning. This is not protection. Protection would be a screen, mask,shin guards, chest protector or less deadly bat/ball combo. |
| Dec. 13, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | It they (the pitchers) feel comfortable enough to not protect themselves... they were warned and know getting hit is very possible. If they lack the reflexes and or mobility as some really do, and get hit, so be it, it happens. Having a pitcher loosing his reflexes isn't worth the serious injuries or worse. Get someone else. He may be a friend, but better to have him alive and well, then at home recovering or dead. |
| Dec. 14, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Keep working on this guys. It's not wed yet. Even if it is only a 1 question, it may be the only "poll" you ever see again, you never know. Far better to have tried and failed, than to have not tried at all. |
| Dec. 15, 2009 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Bump, hopefully so those who are not on here a lot and didn't get a call or reminder, will see it before the deadline tomorrow, |
