Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 70 anonymousDetails for Joe H
Real name:
Location:
,
Division:
Messages posted by Joe H »Message board home »Start a new discussion
| Nov. 12, 2023 Joe H | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Rose Mofford Sports Complex Thanks to all for the input! |
| Nov. 12, 2023 Joe H | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Rose Mofford Sports Complex Does anyone know whether Rose Mofford Sports Complex has an operating snack bar during Winter Worlds? |
| Aug. 14, 2018 Joe H | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: commitment line stepover standoff Forgive me all, but I guess I didn't get my point across. I've seen this happen two times in local leagues during past couple of years where the runner comes up to commitment line stops, waits for defensive player (3B man or any defensive player) to come near him, steps on/over the commitment line and STOPS. They did this hoping to entice the defensive player to mag the tag and hence be called safe. I'm saying that the two SSUSA rules covering this make specific statements that the runner MUST continue to advance toward home plate. They did not do this. They stopped. IMHP, if a rule states that someone MUST do something, and that person doesn't doe THAT something, there should be a consequence to that. The way the rule is written, the only apparent consequence is to the defensive team who makes that tag on the runner....he is called safe. As I said above, if MUST is an operative term, then there must be a consequence for not doing the MUST (forgive the English.) As I said above, I would call the runner out and declare a dead ball. If this is not what SSUSA intends by this rule as written, they should clarify the significance of MUST. I was hoping SSUSA would respond. |
| Aug. 13, 2018 Joe H | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: commitment line stepover standoff Sorry for being a late responder. On May 12, the message board had an example where a runner came up to the commitment line, stoped, waited for the fielder to get close and then stepped over the commitment line, where he was tagged. SSUSA response to this example was that the runner should be safe. Based on SSUSA's written rules 1.15 and 8.8 (both labeled Commitment Line), depending on the "facts" of a specific incident, I question this interpretation. In reading the 5/12 example, my reading of this incident was that the player stepped over the line and stopped. Both of these rules state that the runner "b) must continue home", and "is committed to advancing to the scoring line or scoring plate." To me, this language is unambiguous.....the runner, once he touches/crosses the commitment line, MUST continue toward home plate/line. It also means to me, that he can't stop. I believe the language is included so that runners do not make a mockery of the situation.......i.e. wait at commitment line to draw in the defense. Based on my interpretation of the rules, as written, in the 5/12 example where the runner stepped across the line and stopped, in order to draw the tag, I would call the runner out and a dead ball. The problem is that there is nothing in either of the rules which clarifies exactly what the "penalty" will accrue to the runner when he stops. I think this needs to be clarified. If SSUSA does not intend to penalize a runner who stops on/across the commitment line and doesn't advance toward home, then the two rules need to be rewritten in regards to "must continue home", and "must continue toward home plate/line. Sorry for the length. Hope to get an SSUSA response. Thanks. |
| April 6, 2014 Joe H | Topic: Players looking to join a team Discussion: Regarding Nat201440 I want to affirm oneolddirtdog's comments about Nat201440. Like the "dog", I've had a chance to watch this young lady (she's young to me) practice a couple of times/week for the last 2 years with us senior male softball players. We are a group of 20+ upper division calibre players who have BP/fielding practice 2X a week in the Murrieta/Menifee, CA area. Nat201440 is out there with us. I consider myself a pretty good judge of softball talent, and I can simply say that any 40+ woman's team who picks her up will be a better team simply from this acquisition. Nat201440 is an outfielder with outstanding softball instincts. She gets great jumps on batted balls, is incredibly fast, makes sensational catches look routine, but also makes the routine catches. She runs smart routes chasing balls and is fearless. She has a great glove. She's plays down her arm in her "writeup", but she has a very strong and accurate arm. She is a contact hitter that can hit to all fields, and can surprise, once in a while, with power. She will be a high for average hitter, and will be fearless running the bases. Apart from being a terrific athlete, she is a great person of strong character. She gets along great with all the guys. She wants to play on a women's team, and someone needs to snap her up. You're missing out if you don't. If you want any further info on her, you can e-mail me at joeshirley@roadrunner.com, or call me at 951-461-7240. Joe Hansell |
| Dec. 29, 2013 Joe H | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Softball Equipment Found - Spencer's Crossing - French Valley, CA I found some softball equipment a few weeks ago at Spencer's Crossing field in French Valley/Murrieta, CA. One piece of equipment had the name Jae Fernandez. Can't tell whether it's a male or female. If anyone either knows this person, or is aware of someone losing some softball equipment at that location, have them get in contact with me. If they can identify the equipment, it's theirs. Contact: Joe Hansell at 951-461-7240 or joeshirley@roadrunner.com Joe Hansell |
| April 30, 2013 Joe H | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: Congratulations to Git R Done 65's DWayne(not sure of the spelling), thanks for the nice comments. I know all the guys on the GRD 65 feel that you and your Scrap Iron guys are not only good ball players, but classy guys, on and off the field. I guess it was fitting that we ended up playing you guys for all the marbles in LV, to duplicate our matches in Mesquite. I'm sure we'll meet you guys again in one of the bigger tournaments. We're not going to Reno. If you guys are going, best of luck and don't get hurt. Stay healthy, and we'll see you guys in a future tournament. I also want to give an nod to LV Remedy and the team from Prescott. A bunch of good ball players and classy guys on both of those teams as well. Good playing and good sportsmanship was displayed by all the AA 65's. We did our "division" proud. Hope to see all of you soon. Regards, Joe Hansell Asst. Mgr. GRD 65's |
| Feb. 20, 2011 Joe H | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: A baserunner giving himself up and leaving field after being declared safe Your point is on mark and is not arguable. I understood the out of base path rule when I wrote the previous note. However, I would argue that this runner's action (i.e walking away from the play and, most likely, out of the base path), in fact, resulted in the avoidance of a tag, and therefore is subject to an appeal out. It may be a weak argument, it may be a stretch, although I'm not sure of that either, but it's worth a shot, as opposed to just allowing the runner to walk wherever he pleases with impunity. Still baffles me why he wasn't tagged out. |
| Feb. 19, 2011 Joe H | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: A baserunner giving himself up and leaving field after being declared safe It's accurate, I believe, that there's no SSUSA rule to cover this specific situation. However, if time had not been called, the runner still would have been live. He clearly should have been tagged out, but absent that, I would have called an appeal play arguing that the runner had run (walked) out of the legal base path and should be declared out. Not knowing, of course, exactly the path that he walked, there is a high probability that he walked outside the legal base path and should have been declared out. Joe H. |
| Nov. 25, 2009 Joe H | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Throwing Equipment At Batted Ball Hey guys, thanks for your input, it is most helpful. During my research, I had read SSUSA Rule 8.3 (11) c., but I didn't think it applied to my question, because I had used the word thrown when talking about a glove being thrown at the ball. I was looking for too literal of a translation. Since you guys have refenced 8.3, I've re-read it a couple of times, and it does apply. I have to substitute the word contacts as stated in the rule for my word thrown and it applies. If a glove, hat, etc. is thrown, but does not hit the ball, does the umpire have a good sportsman's issue to deal with? Thanks again for your input. |
| Nov. 23, 2009 Joe H | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Throwing Equipment At Batted Ball I know one is not permitted to throw equipment (glove, hat, etc.) at a batted ball. However, for the life of me, I cannot find specific reference to this violation in the SSUSA Rulebook. If anyone can direct me to the appropriate section(s)where this is referenced in the SSUSA Rulebook I would be most grateful. Thanks for any help. Joe H. |
| Oct. 8, 2009 Joe H | Topic: Bats Discussion: Successor Bat To Easton Synergy Flex SCN8 Sloball1, thanks for the input. That's undoubtedly why I can't find the successor bat. |
| Oct. 7, 2009 Joe H | Topic: Bats Discussion: Successor Bat To Easton Synergy Flex SCN8 Can anyone tell me what you consider to be Easton's successor bat to its Easton Synergy Flex SCN8 with comparable performance? If you bought/used the successor bat, how did it compare? Thanks for any help. Joe H. |
| Aug. 28, 2009 Joe H | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Intentional Walk Thanks everyone for your input. You clarified the issue for me. Joe H |
| Aug. 27, 2009 Joe H | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: Intentional Walk I play and ump in a senior 55+ league. A question arose regarding interpretation of SSUSA Rule 1.2 Base on Balls where it says "only one batter at a time can be intentionally walked." Our feeling is that this is confusing as written, but the interpretation we have given to this is that you cannot intentionally walk 2 consecutive batters. Is that the interpretation others are using? If that is the intent, it seems that the wording should have staed something like "back to back intentional walks in same inning are prohibited", or something similar. I appreciate any responses. |
