http://www.field-general.com/

 
SIGN IN:   Password     »Sign up

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

Online now: 0 members ; 38 anonymous
Change topic:

Discussion: Five run equalizer

Posted Discussion
June 28, 2010
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Five run equalizer
Just a few thoughts after playing with the 5 run equalizer this weekend in El Paso. I felt it changed the feel of the game, meaning the mindsets of the teams.If we get to the fourth inning, as beneficiary of the 5 runs, we have gotten 3 added in by then. There is a huge mental difference, whether we want to admit it or not, to leading 18-13 as opposed to 15-13. There is a little more adrenaline flowing when the score is closer or when you are behind. We played 3 50AAA this weekend and were the beneficiary of the 5 runs and I saw the difference. I was curious whether others out there have felt that when on either side of the equalizer.
June 28, 2010
taits
Men's 65
4337 posts
Did you have the 11 man option or only 5 run spot?
If you had 11 man option, try it.
June 29, 2010
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
They didn't give that to us. Tell you what, taits, I would rather play them straight up. Period. But that's my competitive side. If we get beat, then we get beat. Then we drink a beer.
June 29, 2010
boston
297 posts
I have been involved w/ being both receiving and giving the 5 runs in tourneys. I agree w/ Webbie it can be a huge factor psychologically to the teams involved. When playing 50AAA and 55AAA playing against Major, Major+ or younger teams when 55 and receiving these runs while still scoring your share. You see the opponents sense of urgency becomes greater. Knowing they must make up for the 5 runs you already have under your belt.
Having again played 50AAA and 55AAA playing older teams or AA teams and giving runs. I have seen my teams not panic but understand you have to catch those runs. So in a close game your damning the rule if your team is strugling at bat.
The frustration becomes more prevelent when you either win or loose by 1 to 5 runs knowing that the equalizer was the defference either way.
I would prefer the coaches have the opportunity to opt out of the equalizer and play straight up. Many of the 50 year old teams have players that are 55 and over. So why an equalizer when you are both either AA or AAA. the equalizer is usually for the seeding games anyway. Your going to play in your age group for the elimination round anyway. So why not see how you stack up.
June 29, 2010
boston
297 posts
BTW: Webbie I played in the Chili Pepper also. It is sad it was in El Paso and not Las Cruces. It appears teams that have come in the past from Arizona,Cal. and Texas passed on it this year. I personally think it had to do with the change of venue. Only 20 mens teams and about 6 womens. should be a better turnout.
June 29, 2010
taits
Men's 65
4337 posts
If all teams could live with straight up it would be sweet. But playing teams you know hare either younger and or better (rated wise) is a one sided deal. I think straight up is best but given too the lack of teams within the same ratings and age brackets makes it hard for any Td to try and make it a level field.
Over all the job is done well with what is scheduled. I think its the surprises that also ensue during the making of the brackets that (lack of same type teams, pull outs, those that still want in, time request changes, & more) if you see what I mean.
But yes, straight up w\no pressure caused by the spotting or runs.
But given the way things are not much in this regard will change.
June 29, 2010
taits
Men's 65
4337 posts
Looking at it another way, if you opt out as mentioned for the equalizer and let say the other team cleans your clock, ( more than what ever the heck number of runs they happen to use at the time) what will happen to the winning and loosing team? Do they just get a win\loss recorded or do they stand a chance to move one way or another...
That might be worth thinking about.
June 29, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
When teams receive 5 runs and they "win" by less than 5 runs, do they really feel the actually won the game?

An equalizer system is good and needed, however the runs should be available to be EARNED. Give the lower team the opportunity to score one more run an inning from the first to the sixth (a possible 6 more runs), this way if a lower team steps up and wins the game, they will feel like they accomplished something and not given a gift.

Also, try the 11 man defense, it makes it much tougher for teams when the HR's are used up. With 11 men on defense you are not getting a gift, you have to make those plays in the field.
June 29, 2010
pushin60
Men's 60
63 posts
Jawood, we finally agree on something, lol. I think the ability to score an extra run per inning instead of just having it given to you is a great idea. Much more satisfying for everyone involved.
June 29, 2010
taits
Men's 65
4337 posts
Jawood,
I believe this was asked about (mentioned)) years ago when the run spot were all given in the first inning, all at once. but later went to the 1 per inning later and then later again, to the 1 per starting in the 2nd inning,
But is a sound idea for 'earning' the runs.
June 29, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
pushin60, I don't remember what we have disagreed on in the past ... sounds like everything, lol.

Why do they start the current equalizer rule in the 2nd inning? I have never been able to figure that one out.
June 29, 2010
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Boston-what team were you on? Was it hot enough Sunday? I showed 102 when we got done. Whew!!You are right about the turnout-pretty thin.We got to play 2 good ones with the Drillers.
Jawood-I will bet they start in the second for just the same reasons I was mentioning-that it changes the 'feel' of the game and they want to put it off a bit. I like the idea of earning the runs, too. I also agree about 'winning' with the runs. We played NCI M+ last year in Prescott when I played with the 50 caliber team from Albuq. We beat them something like 28-25, but did we really win when you factor in the 5 runs-no, and I have always qualified my answer when asked about it.
June 29, 2010
taits
Men's 65
4337 posts
Starting the 5 runs in the second is getting your 5 run allotment, IF you play the full 7 innings.
But those games that only play 5 or 6 inning, sort of allows for equalizing the equalizer... you get only 3 or 4 runs...
It's not always what it seems to be.
Softballs version of a shell game, lol
June 30, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
Don't all senior softball players put their pants on one leg at a time? Why any "equalizers"? If you want to equalize yourself with someone else practice harder, train harder, and get better. If you want your team equal, get better players.

This idea of a handicap just seems strange to me.
June 30, 2010
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Taits- You do have your 5 by the 6th inning, taits.We had a couple games short because of the time limit, but they added in our runs to the final score. It did not change the outcome of the game, but surprised me a bit.
Dirty-I do agree with you. Play the game on the field, then adjust on paper. Maybe they could come up with a point system in the seeding games to take into account being beaten by a higher rated team. I know, maybe it would get confusing. Maybe 4 points for beating a higher seeded team on the field, 3 points for beating an equal or lesser team, 2 for getting beaten by a higher rated team by less than 5 runs, and 1 for getting beaten by more than 5 or beaten straight up by an equal or lesser team. Just a general idea, not really put on paper to figure out anomalies yet, so don't beat me up on it. Maybe someone could tweak it to make it work.
June 30, 2010
DCPete
234 posts
It shouldn't even be called an "Equalizer" since it implies that the 2 teams will be "equal" once the 5 runs are given. Call it an "adjustment" or whatever but in our local league we no longer use it, we just let the lesser team use an 11th fielder. And it cheapens the game when the team getting the 5 runs wins by 4 or less runs since they really didn't win the game. Shouldn't the team that actually scores the most runs be the winner of the game?
June 30, 2010
Corky
Men's 55
446 posts
I have no problem with the equalizer just how they award it. This 2nd through 6th doesn't sit right with me specially when a game is shortened for any number of reasons. Just make it 5-0 at the beginning of the game and play. If they were going to give them less on a shortened game that's different.
June 30, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
So the 11th fielder serves as the equalizer, or adjustment, or whatever it is called. Same principle, and just as whacky to me.

Doesn't it 'cheapen the game' when the 11th fielder makes plays that costs the other team runs, potentially winning runs? Rhetorical question, the answer is YES.

You want to be 'equal', play better!
June 30, 2010
DaveDowell
Men's 60
1043 posts
The 5-Run Equalizer application was modified a couple of years ago for two reasons:

To prevent a Visitor getting the "5" in the first inning, earning "5" of their own and having the Home team come to bat for the first time trailing 10-0 ... Older ages and lower rated skill levels many times found this deficit too much to overcome, especially in a time-shortened game; and

Spreading the "5" over the middle five innings more fairly applied the equalizer in any game that didn't go a full 7 innings ...

Here's a link to a little spreadsheet analysis of the "math" behind that theory if anyone is interested ...

Equalizer Math

June 30, 2010
boston
297 posts
Webbie: I played with Old School 50AA from El Paso. Use to play with the Sportsline Bulls 50AAA and 55AAA.
Is it possible for a TD to inform a team they do not have a bracket and allow them to either withdraw from the tourney and receive a refund or a credit toward the next tourney or play straight up. But, using the lower divisions team rules. Just a thought on this issue.
June 30, 2010
boston
297 posts
Question for you guys. There were 2 55AA teams in the 50AA bracket. It was my impression that a team that deos not have a bracket may compete in another bracket. But, that team automatically wins its bracket championship in a qualifiyng tourney. 55AA Team Cruces made it all the way to the championship game at the Chili Pepper Classic. They came thru the losers bracket and played 4 straight on Sunday. In the process they beat the other 55AA team. They wound up playing a 50AA team for the overall championship. We used the equalizer but they ran out of gas. Should this game even have been played? Shouldn't the 55AA team have been awarded first in their division?
June 30, 2010
taits
Men's 65
4337 posts
How did you come up with the 'equalivant' numbers?
The seem very high.
June 30, 2010
DaveDowell
Men's 60
1043 posts
Equivalent Runs = Sum of equalizer runs given so far in game, times 7, divided by number of innings played so far

Example for 4 innings played: 3 x 7 = 21 / 4 = 5.25

Sample cell formula: @SUM($D$6..D9)*7/A9

July 1, 2010
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
OH, my head hurts on that one Dave! Just kidding!! Boston-start a new thread with that one. There were only 3 teams in our division-a 60 Major (High Desert), the Drillers and us. We do wish there were more teams, but we had 2 very good games with the Drillers.
Equalizer-one other comment and I will let it rest-maybe a team should be rewarded for winning straight up without the equalizer if they qualify for it. (Instigating again, Dave)
July 1, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
Are there still guys wondering why there is so little tournament participation? Just read this ridiculous bastardization of the game.
July 1, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
Only being able to score 5 runs an inning is quite the equalizer too!
July 1, 2010
Enviro-Vac
Men's 60
391 posts
A "Catch Up Rule" would also serve as a geat equalizer...
July 2, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
Jawood, exactly. How much 'equalizing' does a friggin' team need? Work harder, get better, that equalizes games.
July 2, 2010
Enviro-Vac
Men's 60
391 posts
The Equalizer is there for teams rated lower then the teams they need to play in any given tournament for a reason and often does not go far enough to equalize the difference.

Not all players can be or will ever be M+ regardless of how much they work at their game hence the need for an Equalizer. Also, Equalizers are important when playing teams from a younger division and again all the work outs in the world can't change age advantage though it can help.

Why would a AAA team want to play a M+ team without an Equalizer? Were it not for Equalizers, many of the M+ teams might not have anyone to play ...at times.
July 2, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
I agree with some kind of equalizer, but wouldn't you feel you accomplished something if you EARNED the runs rather than them given to you and you won the game. We would never take runs against 40+ teams. We will take the 11 defensive players as it is set up now because you still have to make plays, you just get a little bit more of a chance to do so with the extra player. EARN the equalizer don't accept gifts.
July 2, 2010
TOMAR77
Men's 55
197 posts
We are a AA team, our goal is to move up in the ratings, however as a Manager this as proven to be a tall order. We have very solid ballplayers who could easily play at the AAA or even the Major level. Realisticaly you need to acknowledge the differnet abilities and no matter how much you work at it there is know way that a individual such as myself at 180 lb. at 5'8" is going to compete with a talented ball buster at 6'4' 230 lb. Dirty you need to get real, yes we all put on our pants 1 leg at a time but in case you have not notice the dude with the 8" (inch) height advantage, along with the 50 lb weight difference has a decided advantage. SSUSA, has figured that out. They realize that if all teams played "straight-up then there would be far fewer teams. SSUSA, would probably be out of business. We Seniors would not have the opportunity to enjoy this game we play. So maybe some of you need to get a grip. God did not make everyone equal! We are given the chance to be as good as we can be. The equalizer allows for more teams to participate, allowing the possibility of the lower rated team to give the higher rated team competitve game. Our team played in the Camp Pendleton Tourney in So. Cal. the TD, offered us the choice to drop out because all the other teams were rated higher. We turned him down and proceeded to win 3 games out of 5.The games were competitive the 5 gimmie runs allow us to win 1 of the games the other 2 we were fortunate to win by more than 5. We of course were please to win "outright" on 2 of the games, but have no shame in winning the 1 game because of the 5 gimmies. To give a perspective we played the same team we won with the 5 gimmies and they proceeded to kick our collective asses by 29 to 17 (they smashed 7 HR by 5 different players.)So yeah, they put their pants on 1 leg at a time, but their inseam for the most part is longer and in this case they were in the 50 age bracket we on the other hand are in the 55 age level, and don't give me the agrument that they have players that are up to age 55 & above we have players in their 60's so it's a wash. I can assure you, in closing if we did not have a legimate equalizer (which the 5 run gimmie provides, our team would not waste our hard earn money playing in Tourney's to get slauthered by Major+, Major, AAA, and younger aged teams). The problem as I see it is that many of my fellow Senior Softball Player's don"t look at the game from the perspective that all teams are not created equal, it is impossible. I would love to hit the ball 300+ feet, it ain't gonna happen, I understand that,no ego problem here. I will enjoy watching the guys that Blast the ball, and satisfy myself with a.600+ B.A. and in enjoy the comradeship, along with developing a team to move up in the ranking.
Sorry about the long essay, but felt that a different point of veiw was needed.
Respectively Submitted
Tomar77


July 3, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
Tomarr77, I don't know if Dirty meant that a Major team vs a AA team or a 50+ team vs a 60+ team should be played straight up ... possibly he did. Another idea for discussion could be if a team is one division apart, the equalizer is EARNING the runs. If teams are two divisions apart, the runs are given.
July 3, 2010
mad dog
Men's 60
3929 posts
jawood hard to judge.the equalizer is there to give a lower rated team help when they play a hi rated team or younger one.i think its a "necessary evil" to put it one way.
i have been on teams that have given and received,also have played the higher rated team straight up also.we've been about 50/50 in all these games.getting or giving the runs does not equal a win for a team,we still need to play the game.
July 3, 2010
mad dog
Men's 60
3929 posts
here is a question,it used to be that the team getting the equalizer runs or extra fielder was automatically the visitor,is this rule still in effect.
July 3, 2010
SSUSA Staff
1163 posts
mad dog - No, it's no longer in effect ... There is a coin toss for almost every game ... The limited exception is:

When a 70+ or older team is receiving the 'double equalizer' of 7-Runs (they don't get the extra fielder because they already play with 11), they will receive that equalizer and are the designated Visitor ... The Home team may indeed need a big open inning to win, but will not get one as the Visitor where an inordinate number of unnecessary runs might be scored.

Example: 65-Major+ playing a 70-Major (This is an actual occurrence this year in the Western Nationals)
July 3, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
Mad dog, If we can get more teams to play together with some kind of equalizer, then let's do it. Enough of these ridiculous 2 and 3 team tournaments!
July 3, 2010
mad dog
Men's 60
3929 posts
jawood teams are so spread out it is hard to get enough teams in any one div/age bracket.cali is one spot were you have plenty of teams,florida also.we in texas get at most 4 teams in any one div and same age.we play a bunch of cross over here.not like kid ball where they have 50 teams in a div,just in one city let alone the whole state.
with us separating by age every 5 yrs limits our potential opponents.
July 4, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
I'll take 4 instead of our usual 3! And one of those is a 55+ team that they make play down.
July 4, 2010
mad dog
Men's 60
3929 posts
except for our texas state championships we have been crossing over in age and div,in all our tourneys.we usually see the same teams unless we drive 350 miles or more.
July 6, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
How do proud men accept what is nothing more than a handout because they aren't as good, through no fault of the team doing the handing?
July 6, 2010
SOFTBALL6
18 posts
To SSUSA staff - our ladies 60 team played in the chili pepper and was supposed to receive 7 runs from the 50 teams. They did't start getting runs until the second inning and since the time ran out, they only played five innings. Consequently, they only got 4 runs instead of the 7. I protested to the director but he said that was all they could get. Some thing needs to be done so they can actually use their equalizer.
July 6, 2010
TOMAR77
Men's 55
197 posts
Jawood, your idea has merit. I would encouage SSUSA to take a look at it. Maybe a poll would be a good start?
Tomar77
July 6, 2010
SSUSA Staff
1163 posts
SOFTBALL6 - As you correctly stated, you SHOULD have received the 7-Run equalizer due to the two-age group difference, allocated at one (1) run per inning actually played for the first seven innings (only).

You may want to have your SSUSA Rulebook handy next time, and refer to 1.66 at pages 14-15, to help make your case.
July 7, 2010
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Staff-now I am confused-it appears to be a contradiction (Senior moment?)
"You should have received the 7-run equalizer...one run per inning actually played". If you actually played 5 innings, do you only receive 5? Or do they tack on the other 2 at the end. I asked because the same Chili Pepper tourney, they did add our runs due at the end of the game. They also called it so soon that we had a 4 inning, 45 minute game. They added 2 runs to the final score turned in, but did not add in for the ladies 60 team (Softball6).
July 7, 2010
DaveDowell
Men's 60
1043 posts
Webbie25 - The equalizers are applied on a 'cash basis' and not an 'accrual basis', to use an analogy. If the ladies team was getting 7, they are applied at one run per inning played, innings 1 through 7. If the game goes extra innings, no runs, and if it goes less than seven, the left over potential equalizer runs are NOT added at the end. If the equalizer is 5, those are applied on the same basis from the 2nd through the 6th inning, and only for innings actually played. Yes, occasionally we have had a 'walk off equalizer' for a tied game in which the home team is getting an equalizer in a game tied after 5.5 innings. Hope this helps.
July 7, 2010
stick8
1268 posts
"How do proud men accept what is nothing more than a handout because they aren't as good, through no fault of the team doing the handing?"
Dirty this is something I've never understood. While I can understand applying the home run limit of the lower level team, as far as runs are concerned it should be my team against theirs --straight up. Next thing you know they'll propose giving lower level teams 4 outs an inning or higher level teams only 2 outs an inning. Totally retarded.
July 7, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
stick, there might be no limit to how the game is ruined, errrrrrr changed.
July 7, 2010
titanhd
Men's 50
324 posts
7 runs.WOW! Can almost leave your bats in the car.
July 7, 2010
Robo2
222 posts
I understand allowing 5 runs because I remember back in the early 80's in many tournaments in NJ teams stopped coming because the power teams entered and they had no shot.

However, I do not understand giving the lower level team 5 runs and then say to the upper level team - now play with their rules - 3 hrs (if a AAA). That is a double hit on the higher level team. No wonder why som many teams fight to get ratings lower. Start making it more appealing to higher levels.
July 7, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
stick8 - Don't give the brass any more ideas! How about the higher level team has to hit opposite hand! lol.
July 7, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
I started playing in the mid-70s when there was just ASA Open and A. We were a decent A team, played Open teams on occasion, usually lost, and often learned something from the losses. But we NEVER got any runs, outs, extra players, or any other such nonsense.
July 7, 2010
stick8
1268 posts
Or hitting to right field is out!
July 7, 2010
stick8
1268 posts
Dirty, just for the fun of it I'd love to sit in on the rules committee meeting. I'd wager certain members bring up the wackiest ideas intended to make the game more "fair"----retarded.
July 7, 2010
SOFTBALL6
18 posts
To SSUSA staff - Dave, unlike the mens division, there is no major,aaa,aa or any level notation for the womens division. There is also a huge difference in skill level from 50div to 60div. Playing 5 innings and only getting 4 runs is not applying the equalization rule fairly. I just think there should be some way to spread out the runs so the older teams can receive the amount of runs in order to balance the game.
July 7, 2010
Tate22
Men's 55
259 posts
Gents:
Like many entitlement programs in our society, the equalizer program likely won't be pried from the grubby hands that cling to it. Remember, we live in a world where 200-pounders must be allowed to be cheerleaders so their self-esteem is not damaged.

As manager of a 55 M+ team that has to regularly give up the government cheese/run stimulus package, I want to point out the hidden multiplier in the equalizer program. If the "disadvantaged" team takes the fake runs, then they should automatically be visitors. Enough of getting freebies AND the hammer.

A related point is that the undefeated team in the elim portion of a tourney should automatically earn home team, no coin flip until they have a loss. Performance should be rewarded, not discounted.

Jawood, old buddy, here's another vote for your cause of reducing to three levels, like combining Major & Major Plus. Senior/Masters softball did not die when we came up through the ASA 40's and 45's with no divisions. This would eliminate a never-ending debate AND help the environment because less tissues would be used crying over those big old teams that are too good to be allowed to play.

A founding father once said that the best government is the one that governs least - that easily applies to this game!

Play ball;
Don Newhard
Nighthawks 55 M+
July 7, 2010
DaveDowell
Men's 60
1043 posts
stick8 (and anyone else interested) - Make your wish come true, and maybe even contribute some of your vast knowledge at the same time! ... The SSUSA Annual Convention is in Tucson, AZ later in the year ... It's from November 30th to December 4 at the Doubletree Inn & Resort ... Click on the News article titled "HELP SHAPE THE FUTURE OF SENIOR SOFTBALL" from the Home Page here ... The extensive meetings on SSUSA Issues and Playing Rules are transparent and completely open to all attending ... See you there? ... And I'll take the wager ... Wacky isn't on the agenda ...
July 7, 2010
Lecak
Men's 55
1006 posts
Stick8 and Tate22 and Jawood go to the tournament page and find the Mesquite NV tournament dated 9-25 and 9-26 with the note cancelled on it. If you click on it my name is listed as the TD. The reason for the cancellation is that we were attempting just what you are saying no equalizers, open up the HR rule a bit, basically an upper/lower division etc. etc. Plain and simple the simpler we tried to make it the more the bitching and moaning. Good luck getting all the stuff your advocating out of the game. Only a few want what you advocate. Like Dave said go the convention and pitch your ideas they will listen. Just be aware when you try and put it out there you maybe surprised that it doesn't fly and folks are quite comfortable with the way things are.
July 7, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
stick, if I was at those meetings I would probably just pull out a rule book from the late-70s, toss it on the table, and say "play ball"!
July 7, 2010
Tate22
Men's 55
259 posts
Joe:
We've often commiserated on these issues and usually agree on the key points. Take note of the current post on the Temecula and Hemet tournaments put on by SCSSA. The guys putting on these events have long played in SSUSA and continue to do so, but are putting on local (So. CA) events for all the right reasons that you advocate. Bring your Vegas crew down in either July or August, it will be cooler and you will appreciate the changes. Nice fields and homers are never outs!
Cheers;
Don Newhard
July 7, 2010
Tate22
Men's 55
259 posts
Dirty:
Play ball, what a concept! Five year age brackets are sufficient equalizers, with an upper and lower division. Screw the fake run concept. Like Jawood and Smith,Barney advocate, score your runs the old fashion way, EARN THEM!
Don Newhard
July 7, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
I would hope so, but I am not sure. Is a team allowed to turn down the equalizing even if they 'qualify' for it?

If so, does anyone know if that has been done?
July 7, 2010
stick8
1268 posts
Dave, you never know where I'll show up. I would certainly hope wacky isn't on the agenda.
July 7, 2010
stick8
1268 posts
Joe hope all is well with you and yours. Just out of curiosity could you have waited until a couple of weeks before the event to cancel?
Is it true the LVSSA 50+ major plus has been moved to Labor Day weekend?
July 7, 2010
Tate22
Men's 55
259 posts
Dirty:
Yes, teams are allowed to turn down the stimulus runs. I remind managers of that at each coin flip. I'd say about 10-15% of the time our opponents pass on the runs, sometimes take the extra fielder. As a 55 M+ team last year we never took the runs in the 25 games we played against 50's teams. As a team giving the runs, it is irritating, but it makes us bear down and prepares us for close games when we play other M+ teams. I don't like the rule, but we play a number of SSUSA events each year because for us actually playing ball trumps all agida about the BS equalizing rules.

DAVE - Careful what you ask for, Tucson isn't that far away.
July 7, 2010
Lecak
Men's 55
1006 posts
Stick LVSSA is the Sept 3rd,4th and 5th. The tournament in Mesquite was supposed to be several in a series. We tried one like it in mid May in Vegas and we had 12 teams. What we were going for was a series of tuneup tournies where SSUSA would allow me to try different rules. We had upper/lower, no equalizer, 5 HR's and then singles. We had complaints about who was there, over half the teams wanted HR's as outs and we had a number of teams lobbying for run equalizers. When the tourney was finished it became clear that this was a concept that was not going to fly and that the teams preferred the rules as SSUSA has them set for their regular tournies. SSUSA puts on plenty of events there was no need to cannibalize. The late Sept Mesquite tourney and the ones scheduled for 2011 and beyone the decision was made to not have them. Maybe there is a market for more old style tournaments but I didn't see one.
July 7, 2010
DaveDowell
Men's 60
1043 posts
Don ... The sessions are open and all are encouraged to attend ... Might even be a mutually educational experience ... Sure beats typing practice here! ...
July 7, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
Lecak - You want to keep these rules status quo? I'm surprised coming from you. Dirty - we never have and we never will take runs when we play 40+ teams. At least when teams take the 11 defensive players, they have to make the plays and are not getting anything given to them. Tate22 - We need to get an email list going of teams on the west coast to match schedules up in 2011.
July 7, 2010
stick8
1268 posts
Joe, sounds like a big hassle. I suppose change in rules can be initially met with resistance, especially when folks are used to certain rules. I vividly recall when USSSA went from a 4-3 to a 3-2 count one would have thought the softball world was going to end with all the complaining about it.
July 7, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
Looks like the market for old style tournaments is beginning to grow with NCSSA & SCSSA. Attendance in SSUSA is DOWN ... at least in the upper level. Two teams for the Western Nationals and both are local. Had no clue of the rules you were going to play with in your series. We would have come to one. The complaining about the 1 and 1 count comes from people who think softball is baseball ... it's not! Get your ass is the batters box and hit!
July 7, 2010
SSUSA Staff
1163 posts
SSUSA Tournament attendance increased by 1.9% in the 2009 Tournament season over 2008.

SSUSA Tournament attendance in the 2010 Tournament season is up by 5.6% over 2009 in 13 of the 20 events to date through the Western Nationals and Midwest Championships.
July 7, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
Knew this was coming. You are probably speaking of the entire men's and women's program, I am speaking of the upper level men's.
July 7, 2010
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Love this thread! Wow!
Dave Dowell-I may just come out to Tucson if I can for the meeting. I have always wanted to contribute.
Stick8, Tate-we actually offered in El Paso to play straight up,but being a qualifier, we backed off of it so as not to mess up seeding, but I have never played that way. We lost to Steele's 48-1 on Friday one time, then came back and lost 33-25 on Saturday to them in Albuq once-we never asked for runs, or limited home runs.
Personally, I like the 3-2 count-speeds up the game-lets hit! We have these unbelievable bats that hit home runs if you sleep with them and keep them happy. Let's hit!
I do agree with the team receiving runs being the visitors.
Also, intrigued by the idea that the undefeated team in a tourney is automatically home team for the Championship game. Great, but if they lose they flip for the IF game. Great idea.
July 8, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
Sure a 3-2 count speeds up the game, but in an artificial way. A good pitcher will speed the game up just fine.
July 8, 2010
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Dirty-Bad wind days (Reno 2nd weekend-we had one of the few pitchers that really could throw strikes), bad hair days (couldn't throw a strike for anything), and when you play 100-150 games a year you hit some bad pitchers,lots of reasons to try the 3-2.In the day of the hot bats, it give a bit of an edge to the pitcher.I sure don't go up looking for a walk. Yuck!
Back to the thread-------
Lecak-interesting post about trying to have more open tourneys.We would have loved to try that.What you have found out is that there are a lot of teams that, if they don't have the HR power, they want to hobble the competition by limiting HR's or making them outs over the limit.The equalizer has become an expected part of our game. On the other hand-too many teams have sandbagged to lower levels just to win rather than playing the best competition they can play. As a result, everybody is suspected of being capable of sandbagging and hence the equalizer-to hobble the sandbagger.I know-small tourneys and age differences, and class differences also contribute to the need for an equalizer.I remember in the late 70's we had a 4th of July tourney-no class level-just an open tourney. Everyone knew going in that there were about 6 teams that would dominate-Leather(Phoenix), Rebels (Las Vegas), Capitol (California),American Realty (California), Albuq Diablos were always in the top 8. Yet we would have a 48 team tourney and the other teams played without an equalizer. Played because they loved it.
July 8, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
Webbie - You are the truth! You are right, this is exactly what has happened! For the most part the people who can't hit HR's are the ones who want to take them away.

Lecak - I don't think you got the word out enough about your tournaments. An email network needs to be formed.
July 8, 2010
Robo2
222 posts
You want to speed up the game. Make Hrs unlimited. You will get to 5 run innings quicker and you will see who are the power teams and allow for separation from AAA to Major to Major+.

Don't change the game on balls and strike counts.
July 8, 2010
XLong
2 posts
Some of you need to just quit whining and get in the weight room so you can hit a homerun or take up bowling and change the strike rule to three per game. The major division now is basically playing AA rules anyway after the fourth inning because the HRs are gone. What happened to the progressive rule anyway?
July 8, 2010
stick8
1268 posts
3-2 count was designed to speed the game up but in reality it didn't. When I played major ball it was 3-2 no foul to waste. One would think that would be an even faster game. Reality was we still had mostly 2-21/2 hour games.
July 8, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
Robo, you want to speed up the game. Have guys hustle on and off the field. The pace of many/most senior games is maddingly slow.
July 9, 2010
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Dirty-agree EXCEPT I play outfield and by the seventh game or so, even in pretty good condition, I'M BEAT, especially if I am active in the outfield and on base a lot. So I walk in from game one to conserve. :-)
Ain't getting old heck?
July 9, 2010
boston
297 posts
Dirty I agree also. Too many times I see outfielders chatting and strolling to their spots. I play a very active outfield, run for myself and others. I keep myself in good condition but do get tired as Webbie stated. But,I do force myself to try and jog to my spot in left or leftcenter. What helps me is I play USSSA during the week w/ the kids and the umps are always jumping on you to hustle out. Those suckers will call a ball on the batter if the ump says play ball and the pitcher waits too long for his fielders to get in place.
I don't think we should punish guys for hitting the ball out. I played a game in USSSA where one team hit 15 balls out, we hit 5. We are allowed 1 HR hitter. So most of these were singles. We lost the game 20-16. Only because we didn't hit when we needed too. So I guess what I'm saying is giving the batter a 300 ft. single isn't bad.
July 9, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
Webbie, I understand that completely. As a pitcher I don't have to go very far on and off the field. :)

But MANY guys just mosey on and off at league games in mild weather. They just play with little to no pace to their game at all.

The concept of home run limits is just really bizarre to me. Thank God Steele's isn't playing these days, what would become of their 50 homers per game? :)
July 9, 2010
Robo2
222 posts
Remember, it will not be 50 hrs. The 5 run rule limit would still be in effect. If need be, limit the last inning to 2 or 3 hrs due to unlimited run inning.

when it comes to hustle to positions, I beat 90% of the guys everytime. Especially when we have the dugout on the thirdbase side. That is when I play third.
July 9, 2010
#6
Men's 60
1183 posts
OK, may be a silly question. I have been playing senior ball for about 5-6 years.
Did they ever try playing senior ball like we use to play with no run limits, in other words, like we played when we were younger.
You played defense until you got 3 outs.
Just wondering............
July 9, 2010
taits
Men's 65
4337 posts
Before your time of (5-6 years), We did have no time limit, and unlimited HR's. No spotted runes and more... then the business end started to kick in... and the game was screwed.
July 9, 2010
#6
Men's 60
1183 posts
taits,
Have you seen this big AQUAPALOOZA THAT IS BEING HELD THIS WEEKEND ABOUT 2 BLOCKS FROM ME ON LAKE TRAVIS ! What a mess in Spicewood.......watch the news..there saying today 50,000 people, the cove is already getting packed.
I am sitting on my deck now , nothing but boats goung by.
July 9, 2010
DaveDowell
Men's 60
1043 posts
The 'business end' was the very last and the least significant of the causes for the changes in the game ... Before that were technology advances in bats and balls that made formerly acceptable 270' fields obsolete, healthier, stronger and more fit players, and an amazing increase in the number of players playing senior ball, to name just a few!

It's tough now to get three outs in a game of Home Run Derby ... Oh, those were the days!
July 9, 2010
taits
Men's 65
4337 posts
#6,
Don't think Spicewood even existed when I had the cabin on Travis in 68-69. Sure wish I still did though.

Dave, that was also in the days of shorter base lines and much more. Game is just what it has turned into. One can't easily go back, just remember.
But I disagree on the 'last and least' part. One reflects on the other or is a part of its results.
Still good and enjoyable.
Thought it was 275'... Some are still less, Stockton & Lodi @ 265 and the U-2 is overkill.
Some will never be able to be more either, like those two.
July 9, 2010
#6
Men's 60
1183 posts
Dave,
I knew you would clear this up for me.....take care.
July 10, 2010
60 going on 40
Men's 60
25 posts
We played in a SCSSA tournament in Temecula in June and they add the equalizer from inning one as apposed to inning two. This seems a whole lot better as you usually get 5 innings in. That way you get full advantage of the equalizer. Great tournament too. These guys do a great job. Here is their web site www.socalssa.com BTW home runs are not outs there also. I think they played the one up rule. I wouldnt know as non were hit in our 5 games. Fences are 310.
July 11, 2010
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
We just got back from Pinetop. We played Arizona Rogue for the championship, minus a few of their players because they were told the wrong time to play on Sunday, and they beat us 18-17. No equalizer, straight up. I wouldn't have cared if it was 48-17. And, I would not have felt right winning a championship being given runs. Just me, I guess. I was very glad we had a chance to play them. Congratulations, Rogue.
July 11, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
Great competitive attitude, Webbie!
July 12, 2010
mad dog
Men's 60
3929 posts
if i remember right equalizer's have been given since the late 80's(not just in senior ball).we also had hr limits for the lower div's D-AA,was no E at the early stages(anything but open div).
on the 50 hr per game by steele's,well that is wrong,i was at the game they set their personal record of 45 for a game.
so i want to know why everyone thinks all div in senior ball deserve to hit hrs.
July 12, 2010
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
I don't, that's what the AA level is for, but why should everyone have to play this level for half the game when the HR's are used up after 3-4 innings? Webbie may welcome an equalizer if his team EARNED the runs (not speaking for him) but not if they are GIVEN to them, he makes that clear!
July 12, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
mad dog, because they are all grown men who put their pants on one leg at a time.

What is next, limiting triples? Doubles? How far you are allowed to run to catch a ball just in case some team has guys who cover too much ground?
July 12, 2010
Bomber #7
Men's 60
62 posts
Dirty, instead of being so critical and negative, get to a tourney or 2 at the upper level and see how the game actually is, not a view from your local rec league park!
July 12, 2010
hitnrun5
30 posts
Webbie, How is your player that got hurt? I found out after the game that he was injured Friday night, I was misinformed that he was hurt prior, and could not make the trip. Thanks for the kudos, we were missing only two players, next time we play, hopefully we will both be at full strength.
July 13, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
So the "upper level" deserves to play a different game? Or the lower levels? I don't get it. Softball is, or should be, softball. Please expound.
July 13, 2010
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
hitnrun5-I put this on the other thread, but the rocket off the bat of one of the Drillers broke his sternum. He is an excellent first baseman and had made a couple plays I hardly saw, so it wasn't that we had someone weak there. He smothered the shot and got the out and came out of the game upchucking in the dugout. He drove home Saturday and got a CAT scan revealing the break in the sternum and the doctor said he had never seen one like it.He is in pain but will be ok. I am still a proponent of backing off the ball/bat combo-just a notch or two. Maybe to the days of the Orange Crush Techfire bat and the 47/525 ball. It would be plenty lively, but take that 'edge' off that I feel makes it very dangerous.
Thread stuff-it was best playing you straight up-no equalizer. Even if it had been 48-17. It would have been uncomfortable to win a championship on an equalizer. Dave D.-this is a personal opinion, I do know equalizers will continue and you have done your best to be fair with it.
July 13, 2010
Omar Khayyam
989 posts
As has been said many, many times on many different threads, most guys play tournaments for the camaraderie, fun, change of venue, and good times after the game. As a result, there will always be inequitable results as to team strength.

You will continue to play with your buddies even if one is injured (pulled hamstring) or damaged (artificial knee); you will play with them if they get fat or lose their spirit because of family troubles; you will play with them when they are battling the flu; they are your team.

Sure, some teams drop guys every year that don't measure up...or even drop them mid-year if they get hurt of gain weight. The goal of those teams is to win, period.

Does that mean the weaker teams don't want to win and don't do their best? That they are just goofing around, waiting for beer time? Of course not. They just have players with lesser abilities, and may have even begun as teams with some weaker players who might work for the same company, be relatives, go to the same church, etc.

One way to equalize teams is to recognize these disparities and award runs as attempted equalizers in tournament play. I have been on teams that regularly gave runs and on teams that often received runs. My experience is that the team receiving runs usually STILL loses!

Why demean the team that is given runs. All of Dirty's fulminating about getting in top shape cannot help some teams for the reasons listed above. Grump if you like about unfair equalizers (the team that is much stronger now than at the beginning of the season) or how many runs are appropriate, or whether an 11th man is better than runs, but play the game. It's a waste of energy to be frustrated about equalizers. Do your best and strive for a win.
July 13, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
I just don't get how teams 'winning' because of some handout feels all that good about it. But maybe that is me.

I guess it is the same mentality that results in guys who could not hit homers in their 20s and 30s feeling good about hitting one in their 50s and 60s due to someone else's technology.
July 13, 2010
einstein
Men's 50
3114 posts
Leverage and mechanics
can be learned at any time, G.
There are some wonderful instructors
and videos from Demarini, Ken Van Bogart
and Waldyte for example that teach
how to hit better, farther and more consistently.
And lots of players are interested and have been interested in improving
their capability along side any development with bats, themselves.
And again, I don't see the harm
in the game being a little more lively as we get older.
It really helps to make it fun.
July 13, 2010
Dirty
Men's 50
1375 posts
Very true Joe. But I have seen a lot of these guys over the years and all that has changed is they have gotten older, often fatter, no stronger, and now use special bats.

A little more lively is fine, but a "little" would not create screens, PPRs, helmets, facemasks, shin guards, and on an on.......
July 13, 2010
einstein
Men's 50
3114 posts
Good point, G.
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