Home of Senior Softball-USA and Senior Softball World Championships
Log in to your profile:
| Oct. 29, 2024 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Including Coaches/Managers in Annual Rules Meeting Thanks for the quick follow up and information. fuzz :) |
| Oct. 25, 2024 Fuzz | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: One Pitch Softball As Scott said, the times we have played "one pitch" the regular opposing pitchers pitched and it worked fine. Each pitch was a walk, a hit, or an out. The game does move along quickly and the pace/format is fun, but might be too extreme for the traditional minded majority of players. |
| Oct. 25, 2024 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Including Coaches/Managers in Annual Rules Meeting Perhaps set up a series of group meetings using "zoom". |
| Oct. 25, 2024 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Including Coaches/Managers in Annual Rules Meeting How do we go about including Coaches/Managers in the annual rules meetings/discussions (specifically to provide input and to avoid changes such as the "back foot in front of the mat" rule change)? Thanks. fuzzy |
| Aug. 13, 2024 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Batter Box Rule stick8 --- in your association, is a pitch that meets the arc requirements and HITS HOME PLATE considered to be a strike? In my opinion, the key to this new SSUSA rule not being logical is applying a batters foot rule from "home plate is NOT a strike" associations to "home plate IS a strike" associations. |
| Aug. 5, 2024 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Batter Box Rule It seems obvious to many players that the reason the rule change doesn't make sense is because it was adopted from other leagues/associations where pitches that hit the plate/mat are NOT strikes. No matter how many times we (players) have explained this, SSUSA has not acknowledged the new rule is flawed and "deflects" to stating rule changes are only made via the annual rules meetings. Apparently there was not player feedback prior to this rule change. Bottom line, it's unfortunate that common sense player feedback doesn't merit an immediate reversal in the best interest of the game. My previous threads have been deleted by SSUSA and this one will probably be as well. A special thanks to all of you for keeping on trying to get this fixed. |
| May 24, 2024 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Back Foot in Front of the Mat Per DD - MLB Rule 6.06 • A batter is out for illegal action when- . (a) He hits a ball with one or both feet on the ground entirely outside the batter's box .... DD --- Hopefully this can be solved IMMEDIATELY and the "new" back foot/front of mat rule rescinded as if it never happened. PLEASE FIX IT NOW fuzzy :) |
| May 23, 2024 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Back Foot in Front of the Mat Excellent points and well said DD. This ridiculous change was a solution looking for a problem when there wasn't one. I hope you can fix the madness and restore normalcy. fuzzy :) |
| May 23, 2024 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Back Foot in Front of the Mat As David Baker explained very clearly, the problem is that the USSSA rule was created based on the traditional "NON SENIOR" strike zone. It makes sense to get away from "batters box" based rules because of the varying sizes at different venues. As David Baker stated,the current "new" rule needs to be tweaked to take into account the senior strike mat. This is a MAJOR problem and hurts the game if the umpires enforce the "new" rule. Fuzzy |
| Sept. 8, 2023 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Rescinding the 11th defensive player rule In my opinion, adding the 11th defensive player to the 65+ Division has created two substantial negatives. (1) It's already difficult to find enough players and this meant finding an 11th "position" player not just another extra hitter. As we get older, it's increasingly difficult to find enough tournament level players. (2) It has "choked" the middle and handicapped the offense. Perhaps the intent of adding the 11th defensive player was that the player would be used as a fifth outfielder (which would seem logical as we get older). However, the reality has been that most teams use the 11th defensive player as a fifth infielder and shut down the middle. I would appreciate feedback from other 65+, 70+, etc as to your thoughts about this in hopes the rules committee will consider rescinding the 11th defensive player rule. In the interim, we will support a gentleman's agreement with each of our opponents to NOT use the 11th defensive player in the best interest of the game. Fuzzy - Team Mayhem 65+ Major |
| Feb. 8, 2022 Fuzz | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: 3 69 yr Olds able to play 70 age group next yr Thanks, Dave. I appreciate the information and follow up fuzzy --- Mayhem 65s Major (Oklahoma) is still looking for a couple of outfielders phone number: 405-210-3311 |
| Jan. 28, 2022 Fuzz | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: 3 69 yr Olds able to play 70 age group next yr Mayhem 65+ Major could definitely benefit from being able to have one or two or three 64 year olds who won't be 65+ eligible until 2023. And.... the 60+ play different tournament days than 65+ so these players could play both age groups. My thought is that if 69s are allowed to play 70s early, let's also allow 64s to play 65s early. Perhaps expand it to all age divisions. fuzzy -- Mayhem 65+ Major |
| Jan. 21, 2022 Fuzz | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: 3 69 yr Olds able to play 70 age group next yr Another thought --- do we do something similar and allow a certain number of "play early" in 50, 55, 60, and 65 as well. Personally, I think the eligibility should remain as it has been. Just my thoughts. fuzz- Mayhem 65+ Major |
| Jan. 21, 2022 Fuzz | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: 3 69 yr Olds able to play 70 age group next yr It seems like allowing 69s to play 70s early reduces the player pool for 65+ especially since 65s and 70s play the same tournament dates. So.... it would increase the 70s player pool while decreasing the 65s player pool. The 65s pool is already stretched thin and the potential "play 70s a year earlier" would stretch it even thinner. fuzzy |
| Oct. 28, 2021 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Yet another you make the call T2 -- Please list and state the rule which says this situation will result in a forfeit. I can't find it. Thanks. |
| Oct. 28, 2021 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Yet another you make the call Donna's explanation seems a logical application of the "spirit/intent" of penalizing using an "ineligible player" versus using an "illegal" player. In this case, player was on the roster and legal to play but ineligible to play because not listed on line up card. Just my (correcting previous typo) thoughts. fuzzy |
| Oct. 25, 2021 Fuzz | Topic: Teams looking for players Discussion: OKC Mayhem 65M looking for players 65 Major --- Not going to Phoenix --- Looking for a couple of outfielders for 2022 |
| Oct. 21, 2021 Fuzz | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Another: You make the call I do not know the SSUSA rule. However, in USSSA if the interference is judged to be UNintentional the batter/runner going to first base is the second out. If the interference is judged to be INTENTIONAL, the runner closest to home plate is the second out. There does not have to be a throw or attempted throw for interference to be called. (At least that's my understanding) |
| July 16, 2019 Fuzz | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Ruling on Run Down As you stated, it's my understanding the runner is allowed to retreat other than toward home plate when running from home plate to first base. SSUSA is good about replying to these situational questions. |
| July 16, 2019 Fuzz | Topic: Teams looking for players Discussion: 65 AAA TEXAS team Hooks needs outfielder Ken - I might be available 405-210-3311 |
Senior Softball-USA
Email: info@SeniorSoftball.com
Phone: (916) 326-5303
Fax: (916) 326-5304
9823 Old Winery Place, Suite 12
Sacramento, CA 95827
