Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 154 anonymousDiscussion: Impact player rule is a joke!!
| Posted | Discussion |
| Nov. 10, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Impact player rule is a joke!! Hey Guys, In what I write, I am going to leave team names out. And I would not know all of them anyway. What I am going to write here could involve 20% of all teams. To give you a little history from the time that I began playing in Senior tournaments(about 10 years ago), I was recently clearing out some old stuff in my garage. I came across an old SSUSA newspaper from 2003/2004(quite a short version from what we get now), that just happened to mention something about the impact player rule. Back then, it was only 2. Not sure if that was a written rule, but it was printed in the SSUSA newspaper. You come forward a few years, and it somehow evolved to 5 and unwritten. Currently, it is 3 this season, and back to 2. All of this could be explained as to why, but I will not elaborate that here, and leave it to your imaginations. What you do not know, is that the rule is still whatever the guys in charge want it to be. I would think that it would fall on the shoulders of Terry Hennesey and Bill Ruth. HMMM!!! Here is the new unwritten rule guys. Keep in mind about the 5 unwritten in the past, the current 3, and the future 2. If you played last season with the 1-5 impact players in a division on your team, you will be able to keep the lower rating AND the 1-5 impact players, IF THE RUN DIFFERENTIAL WAS 2.5 OR LESS, AND YOU CANNOT ADD ANY MORE IMPACT PLAYERS TO YOUR ALREADY STACKED TEAM. Is this a bunch of bull or what? As far as I am concerned, you can take all of these ridiculous senior softball rules and throw them all into the trash, so we can play some real softball. That would be for all divisions. JMHO, Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 11, 2011 #19 Men's 70 302 posts | Duke ... How does this impact you? |
| Nov. 11, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | #19 This rule actually does not effect my team at all directly. It does not effect any Major Plus team directly. The only negative to a Major Plus team, would be Major Plus players not available, because too many are allowed to stay on their last year's Major team. It effects all Major, AAA, and AA teams. I do not like to see abuse at any level of play. It is amazing that the CEO's can come up with arbitrary rules, so some teams can stay where they are and keep the impact players on their squad, so they can be the top dog. If the ring is that important, then I am sure it can be arranged for them to have one, without pulling the wool over us player's/team's eyes. Bob, take a Major team that played with 5 Major Plus players last year, which was an allowed unwritten rule. With the new rule, you have to drop 2 of those players for the 2012 season or move up to Major Plus. Then drop another one for the 2013. This would have created a fair playing field, especially for those teams playing it straight up. With this 2.5 run rule as stated above(unwritten rule), this team can now keep their 5 Major Plus players and their Major rating, thus, being a superior team in the Major division, while the majority of us are playing this straight up. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 11, 2011 #19 Men's 70 302 posts | Andy ... Thanks for your explanation ... What is the definition of an impact player? |
| Nov. 11, 2011 rightrj1 Men's 55 286 posts | #19, its my understand that an impact player is one who has played in the Higher division for two years and now is playing on a team that's playing in a lower division...i.e.if you played Major + last year and playing Majors this year, your team can only have 3 of those type of players on your roster...If you have more then 3, your team is now moved up to Major +....Staff please correct me if I'm wrong? It doesn't matter the skill level of these guys as long as they were on up division roster! Which I really don't agree with!JMO |
| Nov. 11, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Bob, With respect to SSUSA rules, an impact player is a player that is rated higher than the team he/she intends to play for, simply by association. Simple example is a AAA player is labeled such, because he plays or played on a AAA team. Then, that AAA player decides to join a AA team. He is then considered an impact player. It matters not that he may not be a AAA player in reality, but that his previous team was labeled such and he played with that team. In addition, this AAA player could be the worst player on this AA team, but he is still considered an impact player by SSUSA criteria. When an organization lets some person(s) twist the rules to make sure this impact player rule does not apply to HIS team, that is when something needs to be said, so we all know what is happening and why. Hope that explains it for you Bob. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 11, 2011 #19 Men's 70 302 posts | So, I'm an impact player if I play on a AA team after having played on a AAA team, without regard to my playing ability? |
| Nov. 11, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | andy,in a way that is the how the kids do it.higher can play down,but are called bumps,and the lower team can only have so many bumps or the team must play a higher div.i like that kind of rule,to me it keeps players from dropping down to win a ring,as the ol saying goes.i would also like to see the player that is designated the bump,be able to loose it after a max of 2 years when playing down,so a M player playing AAA go be considered a AAA after 2 years.now if a guy drops 2 divs down,make that 5 years or till he reaches his next age bracket..... how about this for a bump rule,all teams can AA, 1 M+/M and 2 AAA,or 3 AAA AAA,1 M+ and 2 M,or 3 M M,up to 5 M+ not sure if this would work for ya's,any other comments or ways to do this.... |
| Nov. 11, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | #19 mmmm they haven't seen you play,no way.....DOH,LOL....... yes that the way it should work,for at least 2 years after dropping down.....IMO |
| Nov. 11, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | #19 Imagine that, your actual ability has nothing to do with this rule. It is all about association with a particular team. I think you got it now! LOL! Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 11, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Mad Dog, I do not care for your suggested bump rule. Nor do I want to change the new rule, as it is how it should be. But, when it is minipulated and twisted by adding some ridiculous 2.5 rule, that really really sucks!! And when it is sneakily done under the table, and we have to find out about ourselves like detectives, then that really, really, really sucks!!! If I am wrong and the 2.5 rule is an official rule, then I will admit that I made a mistake. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 11, 2011 #19 Men's 70 302 posts | Doesn't seem right that a player with no impact would be an impact player ... How could this be changed? mad dog- you are too kind! |
| Nov. 11, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Mad Dog, After thinking about what you wrote, I do agree with one thing that I believe you were trying to say. That is for example, if a AAA team can add 3 Major players, then it should be allowed that a AAA team can add 1 Major Plus player and only 1 Major player as well. I believe that is what you were trying to say?? Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 11, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | I know that 3 Major players cannot be substituted/interpreted for 1 Major Plus and 1 Major player. At least not above the board. Could be the next unwritten rule. LOL! Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 11, 2011 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | #19, you raise the right question. Defining an impact player who has dropped down is relatively easy. As the Supreme Court justice once said about the difference between pornography and erotic material, "I know it when I see it." The challenge is to determine that a player dropping down is NOT an impact player. Here's a real life example. An older player's skills have been rapidly declining—loss of quickness in the field, much slower runner. His team likes the guy a lot, and he is also an emergency backup pitcher, so they keep him around for a couple years past his best, although he doesn't start. But someone decides, he or his team, that it is time for him to correctly drop down to a lower level of play. But he is an "impact player" according to SSUSA because he was on an upper level team for three or four years. Anyone watching him on his new team can see that he is not an impact player. He bats eighth and usually makes an error or two a game and now and then a sparkling play. They see him lumber around the bases and turn a triple into a single or occasionally a double if the outfielder misplays it. He doesn't hit a home run the entire season. His batting average is so-so. He's still a nice guy and his new teammates like him in the dugout. He plays hard and most games even starts on his new lower-level team. How do you correctly determine that he is not an impact player? If his team adds one more like him (a drop-down) or one legitimate higher-level quality player, they are told by SSUSA they will be rerated to the next division. A tough one, isn't it? Short of personal observation over a few games, how can SSUSA possibly determine that he is not an impact player, especially if his new lower-level team has a good season? |
| Nov. 11, 2011 VINNY LV Men's 50 178 posts | Duke, like you said."let's get back to playn some real softball" Couple yrs back I was an xtra on a major team that played a tourn. in Vegas.. Got to bat 2 or 3 times and I got stuck as a major player for 2 yrs..I didn't even know about this rule because I was pretty new to senior ball.. I only found out when i hooked on with a AAA team and SSUSA brought it to the coach's attention.. Lets just play ball.. Who knows how many years we have left to play.. We play with the kids and don't have to hear this.. |
| Nov. 11, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Hi Vinny, How is your situation going? Shoot me an email, so we can talk off this message board. My email address is DukeLA4@aol.com. Take care and hope to hear from you soon. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 11, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | andy,most of the players dropping would not be "IMPACT" players,they would just guys who had played at the higher level,so the reasoning for my bump rule. no i was saying,AAA could have 1 M+ and 2 M players drop down to them,or just 3 M players. basically let the AA,AAA teams have 3 pick-ups and arrange them by the numbers i have suggested,so they can stay at their present level..pick up any more and team has to move up to the next level. AA, 1 M+/M and 2 AAA,or 3 AAA AAA,1 M+ and 2 M,or 3 M |
| Nov. 11, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Mad Dog, I do not agree with that at all. Right now the supposed rule states that a AA team can pick up 3 AAA players. If I were going to do something along your thinking, I would say for a AA team to be allowed 3 AAA players or 1 Major player plus 1 AAA player, or just one Major Plus player and no AAA players. This way things are all kept pretty much equal. Remember Bob, although players may be coming from a AAA team, they could very well be Major Plus caliber, just not labelled as such. Take care, Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 11, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | To all players, The "impact player" rule or best known to many as "out-of-rating" player rule, is NOT the main issue here. It is the means to make for a more fair and equal playing field for all teams in whatever age/division. The intent for this rule was to achieve a truer AA, AAA, Major, and Major Plus division, as it was supposed to have been all along. With all this nonsense being allowed over the years and under the table to favor some teams and players and owners, it has slipped away from its true intent. I have had phone calls over this recently and many emails as well. Many players know what main team that I am talking about...and that would be W.E. Ruth. That team is loaded with Major Plus players, and with this "2.5 run" unwritten rule put into effect without notice, it negates the effect of putting teams on an equal playing field for them and others. I know it effects other teams as well, and that was not the purpose for putting this rule into effect. W.E. Ruth needs to eliminate this favored rule and move their team up to Major Plus or dump their Major Plus players. Once that is done, then all the others teams that fall into that catagory, can choose to do the same. Then and only then, we can attempt to have teams playing in AA, AAA, Major, and Major Plus on a fair playing field. It is a shame that players, teams, and especially ownership has to resort to these measures to achieve their goals of winning, instead of playing for the spirit of the game as it was intended. Thanks for the opportunity to say it as it is. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 11, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | oh i understand your thinking andy,it was just a thought on my part on how to help some players to get on teams without wrecking the lower div's,it was the AA i had the hardest time thinking on what to do for them,i will say that much......yeah adding anyone from higher up to an AA can really help them,i would say.... oh by ruth has always bent the rules for himself.... |
| Nov. 11, 2011 DoubleL10 Men's 70 907 posts | And who do you think was behind the rule to make California and Florida states that could not add players from adjoining states? At least that one is going away now...If Ruth's 60 Major team was from the East Coast, they would ALREADY have been moved up to Major Plus IMHO. |
| Nov. 11, 2011 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | Got to love un-written rules ... keep everyone guessing! |
| Nov. 12, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Double10, East or West, W.E. Ruth is Major Plus. I have heard from teams that know their players, that they sometimes had a different 5 Major Plus players into their tournaments. Does that mean they get to keep more than 5 Major Plus players on their team and play in the Major division?? Several teams did the same, so it must have legal or unwritten, I do not know?? The border rules for California and Florida are now starting to make more sense for its intent. It might have been smoke-screened to be for another reason, but it really was to give W.E. Ruth a higher probability to not only win the Phoenix Worlds, but the Triple Crown?? Cripple the competition was the ultimate plan?? We should just take one of Jack's photos of W.E. Ruth, and put it in the SSUSA newspaper, then title it "Triple Crown Winners". LOL! Then, maybe we could ALL play by the same rules????????????????? Have a nice day guys! Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 12, 2011 lemons Men's 65 323 posts | What if these "impact players" move to a higher age division? Is a 60 Major player also a 65 Major player? Thanks, Mel |
| Nov. 12, 2011 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | lemons, I think if he is a true "impact player" in his early 60s, he is likely still an impact player after he turns 65 (or maybe he already was older but chose to play with the 60s for the competition). Only factor that could make a difference is poor health or injury, where his skills have declined, and he is no longer the player among his peers that he once was. |
| Nov. 13, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Jawood, I was reading one of your posts under "Ratings on team in championship game". Not everyone will agree with everything expressed, but never give up your right to express your views, especially, do not let the "brass" wear you down. Sometimes things will change, but not if we throw in the towel. Even if I lose the battle in my thread here(and I should not), I will win the war. Players and teams will be looking at W.E. Ruth teams in a different light from now on. I believe in the system, and for SSUSA, it is the rules committee. The "brass" should be over-ruled on this issue in December. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they do not, and if enough players or teams feel strongly enough on a particular issue, we are the majority. Of course, if and when over-ruled, there should be another unwritten rule put in its place. LOL! We will address that one next, once we find out what it is. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 13, 2011 leftyodoul Men's 65 106 posts | Duke - Being a Northwest player, I have an intimate knowledge of the team that you speak of. They had been previously rated as a Major Plus team and begged to be rated as a "Major" team this past season. Then they proceeded to stack their team with players who started the season playing on the same sponsor's 55 Major Plus team. By the time they reached the World's this year they had at least 3 of those players playing for them. It was a big surprise to me that they didn't just walk through the World Championships. Not that I am disappointed! |
| Nov. 14, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Leftyodoul, I guess after begging, W.E. Ruth just has to make an unwritten rule approved by himself or Terry to get their way. How convenient is that. I know this should be dealt with at the rules committee meeting in December. Once this is rectified, then we just have to be aware that there will be another unwritten rule, and it will benefit W.E. Ruth in some devious way. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 14, 2011 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | One of the biggest wastes of time and energy in Senior Softball is the endless scheming and theories on how to segregate players based on some mythical, subjective image of an "impact player". Even a real impact player like Ron Parnell only bats 4-5 times a game. Get rid of the Major Plus designation, and the volume of whining and scheming on this board to dilute competition would decrease dramatically. Anyone playing in top-level nationwide tournament softball should welcome the chance to compete against the best, or should stay the blank home and impact the Barcalounger. 5-year age brackets work, and 3 divisions is more than adequate at any age level. Don Newhard 55 M+ Nighthawks |
| Nov. 14, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Tate22, I agree with most of what you said. Having the 3 levels would eliminate a team like W.E. Ruth from jerking around with the rules, and we would not have the unwritten "2.5 run rule". As a matter of fact, we probably would not have any unwritten rules. That would be nice! Of course, maybe they will try for another level of play? LOL! Don, I know your ultimate goal is to have more teams to play, and I am in the same dilemna, and worse than yours. There are not that many 60 teams for us to play. It is what it is. Have a great season Don, and hope to see you out there soon. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 15, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Grumpy55- The above is your answer to the 2.5 rule, which is an unwritten rule. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 15, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | We need more players/teams to read this, so we can express our thoughts, and get the right and fair results at the December rules committee meeting. Send emails to George up North, and maybe he will answer one of them. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 18, 2011 JamesLG 420 posts | I don't quite get all the fuss about a team that did not even win the worlds. At the Western Nationals I believe they hit a total of less than 10 HR's. Thanks: James |
| Nov. 18, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | tate22,don't think it is about an individual player but with "players" dropping down to win.aka 5 = players going down a div and teaming with the best from that team will most likely make that a real strong team.....see what i mean....... |
| Nov. 18, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | JamesLG, You're right! You do not get it. BTW, just curious, do you play on this team? Simply, you just cannot continue to make rules, especially unwritten rules, to give your team the best advantage to win tournaments, just because you do not like what a committee ruled and you own 1/2 of the organization. Leftyodoul above said it well, "It was a big surprise to me that they didn't just walk through the World Championships. Not that I am disappointed!" The "A-Team" just did not have their plan come together. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
