Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: B.J., TABLE SETTER 11; 114 anonymousDetails for Bob50
Real name:
Bob Schulz
Location:
Kingwood, TX
Division:
Men's 60
Messages posted by Bob50 »Message board home »Start a new discussion
| Nov. 7, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: My team wants the one up rule back in SSUSA I would like to have the 1 up rule back in Major Plus. It only applies if both teams have reached their hr limit. Why not? |
| Nov. 3, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: pitcher safety thought! I have pitched against some of the best hitters the last few years in 55 major plus. The current rule does not protect the pitcher but it does provide a penalty for hitting a ball hard directly at the pitcher. While the rule is intended to protect the pitcher, part of the requirement for the rule to be enforced is counterproductive to its intended purpose. I refer specifically to the requirement that the pitcher stay in his cage (pitchers box). If we want to protect the pitcher, why require that he stay closer to the hitter for the rule to be enforced? I believe if a pitcher is allowed to back up after delivering a pitch he will be safer, have more time to make a fielding play and therefore, given an additional split second, be able to better protect himself. Given the additional time and the possible chance to then play the ball, the chance of the rule needing to be enforced or the pitcher getting injured is reduced. I can state however that the power of some hitters, with the current bat/ball combinations, will mean that some balls will not be catchable no matter how fast a pitcher is able to "retreat." Therefore I would recommend that the rule be modified to state that as long as the pitcher stays within the width of the pitchers rubber and retreats straight back that the rule can still be enforced but only if the pitcher in the opinion of the umpire does not have time to make a play and is in a purely defensive position attempting to shield himself from injury when hit. Bob Schulz |
| Nov. 2, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: new team. A new team has been formed which includes many of the Travelodge players from this year. The new team will be called Black & Blue and will play 55 major plus. |
| Oct. 29, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Balls in general Okay Joe. Now I know what you would prefer. Hopefully it will be taken into account in hot weather. |
| Oct. 29, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Balls in general Joe, You are starting to cross the line. Keep it civil. One simple question. Do you have a problem with the Stote used in Phoenix if it properly stored prior to the game or do you believe everyone should use the Rock which was used in Vegas? |
| Oct. 29, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Balls in general Woody, good post. |
| Oct. 27, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Balls in general Joe, You have complimented me on a number of my posts in the past. I have found nothing worth writing about lately. I don't care to debate you on the ball issue but I need to at least state my opinion on this matter and then let everyone else comment and have their say, including you. I am not a home run hitter. My teammates on Travelodge will confirm this is the case trust me. I try to hit line drives. I had not hit a home run in four years until Vegas. In Vegas I hit two. My first at bat cleared the 30' fence. I am certainly not bragging here because it is nothing to brag about. That ball--the "Rock" is too good to use with senior bats. Let's bring defense back into the game. Now let's be practical here. Players bring their own bats to tournaments. If anything less than senior bats were allowed doctoring would become a major issue. As Butch pointed out earlier it makes no sense to put yourself at a disadvantage by using anything less that a U2 or Machenko Combat if they are allowed. However the ball can be controlled. It is supplied at our tournaments. The ball we used in Phoenix is still a good ball. Now, I understand in the heat, the ball does not perform as well but it is still a level playing field in that both teams have to hit the same ball. The heat is no more a factor than some sun in a hitter's eyes. We don't like it but it is the same for both teams. Consider it an act of God, if you will, that some balls will get softer in the heat. Joe, unless you truly believe you speak for most players, lets move on from the ball issue. No offense intended. Is that a pun? Bob Schulz |
| July 6, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: New idea for combining divisions Jim16, The initial double elimination round replaces 3 seeding games not two. Essentially my suggestion replaces a 5 game minimum guarantee with a four game minimum guarantee and it is fairly simple. It amounts to a small double elimination bracket and a combined division double elimination bracket round and it replaces 3 seeding games and our normal double elimination bracket round. The question is would there be more games played in the initial smaller bracket round within one division compared to 3 seeding games. I think it becomes about a wash in total games or slightly fewer under my suggestion. The difference is under my suggestion the games become more meaningful. |
| July 6, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: New idea for combining divisions There seems to be a renewed call for combining Major and Major Plus divisions. I am a proponent. Maybe though we need to transition to it in this manner: 1) Eliminate seeding games 2) Instead of seeding games play double elimination bracket play within your division--Major or Major Plus 3) After this bracket play is completed combine both divisions for another double elimination bracket 4) This satisfies a 4 game guarantee of play for each team in every tournament this format is used 5) It gives the separate divisions a champion and transitions to a combined tournament with more teams to play each other 6) Normal rewards are given out provided at least 4 teams are in bracket play 7) Should not cost associations any more since it is a four game guarantee as opposed to five games 8) Gives the Major teams a taste of Major Plus without taking away play within their division 9) Determines a true Major Plus champion by having more teams to play. 10) Seeding is determined by a blind draw at the Captains meeting and for the combined divisions by a pre-determined seeding based on the finish of the initial double elimination bracket play 11) AA and AAA may want to adopt this same tournament format 12) MVP and All Tournament Player selections are chosen/determined for the overall tournament. |
| June 22, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: S.P.A. Nationals Travelodge 55 major plus will be there. |
| June 16, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: Midwest Championships - WHAT YOU GET FOR YOUR $495.00 ENTRY FEE I believe Dave Dowell, Rudy Pribble and SSUSA did all that was possible under the circumstances. We've had an unusually cold and wet spring in the Chicago area this year. You can't plan for these things. About ten years ago we had a February tournament completely rained out in Florida. You can't plan for unusual weather. All that we can ask for is their best effort to keep the tournament going with as many games as possible. Based upon what we have heard however SSUSA may want to consider not going back to Schaumburg again. Bob Schulz |
| June 3, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: PPR-Reno I would suggest to all managers to review the rule with the umpire prior to the coin toss. Print it out and read it yourself so that you understand the rule and that review it with the umpire to avoid confusion and disagreements as to its application once the game starts. PITCHER SAFETY RULE . OVERVIEW - There are only three (3) very simple components to the "PSR". Two of them are factual matters and the third is an umpire's potential judgment call. The confusion on the part of Tournament & Field Directors, Umpires and Managers & Players is the result of over-complication of the rule interpretation. FACTUAL MATTERS - The umpire shall automatically apply the PSR and the resultant 'Dead Ball Out' ruling in the following factual circumstances: • The PSR is applied only WHEN a batted ball actually strikes the pitcher (except on the arms - See 'Judgment Call' below). Near misses, balls batted sharply through the pitcher's box or in the vicinity of the pitcher, without striking the pitcher, do NOT result in the automatic application of the PSR. It is NOT our intent to remove the pitcher from the game defensively. The previous requirement that the batted ball be a line drive has been removed. Short hops striking the pitcher are now encompassed by the PSR. EXAMPLE: The PSR is automatically applied when a sharply batted ball strikes the pitcher's head, neck, torso or legs. Think of the "sheriff's pistol range" armless silhouette target as an illustration. • The pitcher MUST be in the pitcher's box when struck by a batted ball as described above. The pitcher's box is a 2' by 6' rectangle with the front being the front edge of the pitching rubber (50' from home plate) and extending 6' back therefrom toward 2nd base. Being in the pitcher's box is defined as ANY part of the body being in contact with the pitcher's box or the lines defining the box. EXAMPLES: A pitcher leaning outside the box to deliver a pitch, with a foot down on or inside the lines of the pitcher's box is covered by the PSR. (Lines are in!) Conversely, a pitcher who delivers a pitch then loses contact with the pitcher's box by stepping to the side to assume a fielding position is not covered by the PSR. The same result applies when a pitcher delivers a pitch then retreats behind the pitcher's box, or to any other position in the field of play, for purposes of making a defensive play. The pitcher's box is the only 'safe haven' for application of the PSR. JUDGMENT CALL - The umpire shall make a judgment call as to the application of the PSR when any batted ball strikes the pitcher in the arms, including the glove. • When a batted ball strikes the pitcher in the arm (including the glove), while the pitcher is, in the umpire's judgment, in the process of making a reasonable defensive play on the ball, the PSR does not apply. This is a 'play on' situation. EXAMPLE: Pitcher is in the pitcher's box and reaches out (or jumps up) in an attempt to field a batted ball, which strikes the pitcher on the forearm. This is a live ball and the result of the play stands. • When a batted ball strikes the pitcher in the arm (including the glove), whether or not the ball ultimately strikes any other part of the pitcher's body, AND in the umpire's judgment, the pitcher had no opportunity to make a reasonable defensive play on the ball, the PSR applies and a resultant “Dead Ball Out” ruling shall be made. EXAMPLES: Pitcher is struck in the arm(s) while reacting to protect himself/herself or avoid being harmed by the batted ball. Pitcher makes a personal defensive reflex move and is struck by the batted ball on the arm and/or other part of the body. SUMMARY - Only two factual criteria determine the automatic application (or non-application) of the PSR. An umpire's judgment call, NOT subject to protest or appeal, is required when a batted ball strikes a pitcher on the arms, whether or not it then strikes another part(s) of the pitcher's body. |
| May 26, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Not Directly Related to Softball, But... Thanks to all of are military men and woman--those currently serving and those who have served. THE FINAL INSPECTION The Marine stood and faced God, Which must always come to pass. He hoped his shoes were shining, Just as brightly as his brass. 'Step forward now, Marine, How shall I deal with you? Have you always turned the other cheek? To My Church have you been true?' The soldier squared his shoulders and said, 'No, Lord, I guess I ain't. Because those of us who carry guns, Can't always be a saint. I've had to work most Sundays, And at times my talk was tough. And sometimes I've been violent, Because the world is awfully rough. But, I never took a penny, That wasn't mine to keep... Though I worked a lot of overtime, When the bills got just too steep. And I never passed a cry for help, Though at times I shook with fear. And sometimes, God, forgive me, I've wept unmanly tears. I know I don't deserve a place, Among the people here. They never wanted me around, Except to calm their fears If you've a place for me here, Lord, It needn't be so grand. I never expected or had too much, But if you don't, I'll understand. There was a silence all around the throne, Where the saints had often trod. As the Marine waited quietly, For the judgment of his God. 'Step forward now, you Marine, You've borne your burdens well. Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets, You've done your time in Hell.' |
| May 22, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Players Voice I commented on another thread and was asked to start a new one with this idea. My post on the other thread was this: I'm glad to see that this message board is back to sharing ideas for improvements and not just whining about the rules as they exist. Would it be possible with regard to the hot issues--homes run limits and PPR to name two to allow the card carrying members of SSUSA as a whole to put the alternatives to a vote when the players attend a tournament? One vote per player for the year. only card carrying members of SSUSA would be allowe dto cast a vote. For instance for the PPR let the players vote to determine what alternatives would be favored most. As an example with regard to the player protection rule a multiple choice for a) Keep the rule as it exists, b) Use a screen, c) Call a dead ball out for any ball hit thru the pitchers box at a height of 7 feet or less, d) Modify the current rule to any ball not fieldable by the pitcher regardless of whether it is a ground ball or a line drive that hits the pitcher is a DBO, e) Eliminate the PPR completely With regard to the home run rule a) Keep the rule as it exists, b) Allow teams to go one up after the home run limit is reached by both teams, c) After the home run limit is reached allow singles for each home run thereafter, d) e) Eliminate the home run limit completely Comments? Further ideas? other rules to vote upon. Other choices for the examples above. Naturally it would be up to SSUSA to accept the opinion/vote of the players and if they would it would take the pressure off them. Instead of a decree it would be by the voice of the players. |
| May 21, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: First Taste of PPR it was BITTER! I'm glad to see that this message board is back to sharing ideas for improvements and not just whining about the rules as they exist. Would it be possible with regard to the hot issues--homes run limits and PPR to name two to allow the card carrying members of SSUSA as a whole to put the alternatives to a vote when the players attend a tournament? One vote per player for the year. For instance for the PPR let the players vote to determine what alternatives would be favored most. As an example with regard to the player protection rule a multiple choice for a) Keep the rule as it exists, b) Use a screen, c) Call a dead ball out for any ball hit thru the pitchers box at a height of 7 feet or less, d) Modify the current rule to any ball not fieldable by the pitcher regardless of whether it is a ground ball or a line drive that hits the pitcher is a DBO, e) Eliminate the PPR completely. Comments? Further ideas? |
| May 20, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: First Taste of PPR it was BITTER! DesertDave and Gekle, I agree. Use Gekle's idea for an out in the pitching lane except don't take away from a good fielding pitcher when there is an opportunity for a double play. This may be a good compromise without altering the game drastically. The idea is better than a screen. |
| May 20, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: First Taste of PPR it was BITTER! Gekle, Do you have some better ideas to suggest to SSUSA in order to replace the rule that currently exists? |
| May 20, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: First Taste of PPR it was BITTER! Nancy, You and I spoke and I know you know the rule. Obviously the application of the new rule by the umpires is the issue. For this rule I would advise all managers at the time of the coin toss to review this with their umpire to make sure everyone understands how the umpire will be calling the PPR. The managers should then relay the rule as it will be called during the game to their players before the start to make sure there is no misunderstanding going in. It would eliminate a lot of the arguments that have resulted during the course of each game if this is done. To make my point again, regardless of how an umpire intends to rule before the start of the game, managers should make certain that in the event a pitcher is able to field the ball it should not be ruled a dead ball out and that the pitcher be allowed to throw the hitter out or to turn a double play if that is available to him or her. This should be explained to the umpire before the start of the game during the coin toss. Thanks Nancy. I think you did a great job in Indy. |
| May 19, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: First Taste of PPR it was BITTER! We recently had our first opportunity to play with the Pitcher Protection Rule in Indianapolis. I had two problems with it. One was interpretation and the second had to do with the effect of a call. On first day of play the umpire on our field call every ball hit thru the pitcher's box a dead ball out. On the second day the umpires called it a dead ball out only if the ball hit the pitcher on a line drive whether or not it was caught. The inconsistencies need to be dealt with if we are to use this rule all year. Secondly, in a tournament, if any ball hit thru the pitchers box is a dead ball out the rule can become counterproductive to its intended purpose. Our first day we saw three times a one hopper fielded by the pitcher with a man on first which could have been turned into a double play ruled a dead ball out. I would suggest, at the risk of complicating this rule further, that the benefit should not be to the offending team and that if a ball can be fielded by the pitcher to his teams advantage that the pitcher be allowed to complete the play. I thought the rule was intended to protect the pitcher not benefit the hitter. I believe the rule properly enforced and followed is absolutely necessary if we are to play with it all year. Bob Schulz Travelodge |
| May 5, 2009 Bob50 | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Altered or illegal bats Taits, Since your email address is no where to be found here's mine--rschulz511@aol.com. |
