Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 5 members: Bump29, Papajoe56, Ronny Mac, Roscoe 65, TABLE SETTER 11; 112 anonymousDiscussion: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RULING • WMC 50-Major Matter
| Posted | Discussion |
| Dec. 1, 2015 SSUSA Staff 3483 posts | EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RULING • WMC 50-Major Matter Enough is enough. As of today, we have removed all Message Board posts regarding the WMC 50-Major division roster eligibility issue, and we will delete all future similar type threads upon discovery. We have also indefinitely suspended the Message Board posting privileges of Tim Millette. A member of the SSUSA staff, during routine annual forms and documents maintenance, properly corrected the TOC and WMC advisory “white paper” documents to correct technical errors and bring them into exact compliance with the Official Senior Softball-USA Rulebook. In matters of a technical language conflict between any SSUSA form or supporting document and the Official Rulebook, the Rulebook must take precedence. The advisory “white papers” were in technical conflict with the actual rulebook, and had been so since at least the 2012 Rulebook edition. This technical correction does NOT constitute a rule change. The Official Rulebook governed when we issued our November 19th decision, and that remains true today. The inescapable conclusion is that, as incredible as it seems, Tim NEVER CONSULTED THE OFFICIAL SENIOR SOFTBALL-USA RULEBOOK (see below) to develop any form of clear and accurate understanding of the rules governing roster composition matters. As a result, he created and fostered a lengthy series of posts that were grossly detrimental to the best interests of the Senior Softball Community in general, and unfairly harmful to multiple other individuals. That factual circumstance is the basis for today’s action. FRAN DOWELL SSUSA Executive Director December 1, 2015 __________ C. If a qualified team's roster falls below 12/13 players, the team may apply to add players until it reaches the 12/13 player level. Those players may be from the same age group in the same or lesser skill level, or equivalent. D. If an invited team's roster falls below the 15/16 limit, the team may apply to add players until it reaches the 15/16 player level. Those players must be from the next older age group in the same or lesser skill level, or equivalent. NOTE: For Sec. 4.2(2) B-D, managers must apply to SSUSA in writing for approval of those players. Player additions will be approved or denied on an individual basis. |
| Dec. 1, 2015 OZ40 549 posts | A heart felt "Thank You". Throughout this whole forum fiasco you have demonstrated the patience of a saint. Enough is enough. |
| Dec. 1, 2015 Crusher23 Men's 55 53 posts | Thank you. It's about time. Your tolerance of his antics is admirable, as I would have banned him long ago. Kudos to you and the staff for maintaining your professionalism throughout. |
| Dec. 1, 2015 Fabe Men's 65 456 posts | Mahalo for your insightful response! Your office has given us a clear view on the decision making process that occurred. Now for those who disagree or see things differently here are your choices: Go thru the rule change process, play within SSUSA rules or move on to a different organization! Once again mahalo for a much needed response n decsion. Aloha, Fabe |
| Dec. 1, 2015 Slap hitter 28 posts | THANK YOU! I would have been the first on this post to thank you for putting this thing to rest but, I enjoyed reading that first paragraph too much and two guys beat me to it. Your professionalism and patience was an ALL STAR performance! |
| Dec. 1, 2015 Mango Men's 50 159 posts | Unbelievable patience exerted by SSUSA especially Fran and Dave for a player that seemed to “not want to understand”. Unbelievable the amount of misinformation, rumor “I heard this half truths” ,innuendo’s, unfounded , uncalled for and untrue statements directed at SSUSA as well as at a championship team and individual players on that team. This by a member that either truly wasn’t capable (perhaps because of a learning disability) of following a cogent and accurate explanation of a ruling or just didn’t want to understand. As usual Fran was extremely dignified, more than fair, clear and concise. Kudos to SSUSA for letting the discussion go on as long as they did. And greater Kudos for finally pulling it. |
| Dec. 1, 2015 Dancer 115 posts | I was getting sick of it too and thank you. GOOD DECISION ! |
| Dec. 1, 2015 Olden Slow Men's 75 209 posts | Bravo..You have much more patience than I would.. |
| Dec. 1, 2015 TOMAR77 Men's 65 333 posts | Now I know what, "Beating a Dead Horse to Death", is all about. I feel sorry for the Horse. Well people had their say, they made their hay and now to the betterment of Senior Softball they've gone away. Thank You Fran & SSUSA for ending this poor horse's misery. Tomar |
| Dec. 1, 2015 Full Monty 88 posts | In the words of a famous Cartoon Character.... "YABBA DABBA DOO!" |
| Dec. 1, 2015 Player 86 posts | My kudos also Fran! I was sick and tired of the continuing nonsense being posted. There are for more worthy issues to be discussed. |
| Dec. 1, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | Like the others said, you have proven SSUSA to be extremely patient and willing to allow players to express themselves. With that said, two months of intense negativity and disparaging remarks was more than enough. Thank you for ending the nonsense! |
| Dec. 1, 2015 The real deal Men's 70 114 posts | Real disappointed that the deleted thread turned into a pissing contest between Tim and Cornerstone, and even more disappointed that SSUSA staff has now banned Tim from posting on this board. I think he had some legitimate concerns that have not been answered.. So staff, please answer this one question once and for all: did Cornerstone add any "illegal" players when they stacked their roster for this tournament? And no, I am not associated with either of these teams - just a player who believes that any add ons for this tournament shouldn't be allowed. |
| Dec. 2, 2015 Hammer22 29 posts | Just read Tim's screen shots on the oldscout message board. For all of those who are tired of nonsense you might want to check it out! If you don't like to be wrong you might not. |
| Dec. 2, 2015 Mango Men's 50 159 posts | Real Deal and Hammer, I just went on the old scout and looked at Tim's screen shot. And the critical piece of the rule is the same as it is today. That is the last two sentences of the rule which Tim always conveniently left out of his posts. so here it is: Managers must APPLY to SSUSA for approval of these players in writing. These players are approved or denied on an individual basis." This means that management/SSUSA, on an individual basis could add a 50 major plus player to a 50 AA team if they thought that the overall strength of the team would not have an unfair advantage. Had Tim's team tried to add a 15th 50 year old M plus player to go with the 14 they already had(which is 12 over the rule book limit)technically they could have approved it- or denied it. Its pretty simple concept and again Tim chose to leave this part of the rule out of all his posts. There is a similar concept in the actual rule book that allowed Tim to bring his team into a 50 major tournament stacked with 14 50 major plus players. This in violation to a written rule there.Although Tim by his own admission he had no idea how his team was admitted in, his team was technically also "legal" based on the same concept. |
| Dec. 2, 2015 Dbax Men's 65 2100 posts | Real Deal, your question was answered by Fran on Nov. 19th. |
| Dec. 2, 2015 Crusher23 Men's 55 53 posts | I had been observing the entire original "discussion" prior to it having been removed from the board. I kept my 2 cents to myself the whole time simply because argumentative logic had disappeared long ago from that thread. People were comparing apples to oranges - things just weren't making sense. Until... Mango came along. He must have finally grown tired of things and pointed out the obvious to all of us. He quoted the one caveat in the rules that leaves the final decision on ANY and ALL player adds up to SSUSA: "Managers must APPLY to SSUSA for approval of these players in writing. These players are approved or denied on an individual basis." That's it folks, "discussion" over. There is no need for "interpretation", or "intent" of the rule here. It's clear. So no rules were broken. Yeah, sure, some decisions won't always be popular with 100% of us, and we may disagree here or there (as Tim did in his original rant, err I mean post) and that is our right as members of this organization, but to accuse them of cheating as was done in that thread is simply ridiculous. I have only been playing in this organization for 4 years but from what I can see, SSUSA has been fair in all of their decisions and I trust that all their decisions are done with OUR best interests in mind. SSUSA does an admirable job of protecting the integrity of the game at the senior level and I for one am grateful for the opportunity they provide for all of us senior players to play a little extra ball against our own kind (other senior ballers). If you truly don't believe in, or trust this organization, then why are you here? There are other options for you, go make their lives miserable... |
| Dec. 2, 2015 16wood Men's 65 77 posts | The language has been there for years but this entire episode was confusing to me as well. On top of the additional verbiage supplied by Mango, which should have halted the whole argument weeks ago, it seems to me Tim's team had an equal number or slightly more 55 M+ guys than did their opponent... i.e. where was the 'uneven playing field'... Tim stated that he didn't feel that Cornerstone's management had the wrong motives. He admitted that he felt that 50 M teams shouldn't be allowed to add 55 M+ players... yet his team had 15 or so. Cornerstone went through the process as outlined above, whether Tim admitted this or not. Despite ALL of this, these threads were going on for damn near 2 months. I cannot speculate on Tim's motivation but, as an observer/reader, the this subject has been a huge downer. However, we should keep in mind that Tim represented himself only, not his team. Bob Woodroof |
| Dec. 2, 2015 Slap hitter 28 posts | One of The worst parts (of many) of all this was calling the GOOD people of Cornerstone LIARS! The only good thing that came out of this...IMHO...Tim is solidly in the 2%!!! |
| Dec. 2, 2015 Olden Slow Men's 75 209 posts | Slap, 2% ??? That's kind of high isn't it ? :-) |
| Dec. 2, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | BW, I don't think Tim's Tactics with Fran and Dave where in the best interest of the site... I think it should of all been done behind the scenes! I know Tim took it to the Boards and it got into a name calling pissing match! At the end of the day, I have talked to Tim about this and his motives are not to harm or even take away from this years Major WMC. His motives are going forward, were to never have what happened at this WMC Major division.. You had two teams loaded with 55plus major ball players that went through the major division and ended up in the finals! Summerville is the best team in the country IMO, and they will have 9 55s on their 50 major plus team next year... Let them pick up 6 more top 55s from the 55major plus division and they would Kill all the Major teams! That is the Logic that has to change.. I believe that SSUSA will be addressing this at the Winter meeting! I'm sure Tim wanted to hear SSUSA made a mistake on verbiage or the rule That SSUSA corrected as Fran stated. I believe if he were less hostile in his rhetoric, he would of probably got what he wanted.. Just because Tim is hated by some or many, doesn't mean he was totally wrong on his thinking on this subject.. The fact that any team could pick up up to 8 players to any WMC roster is ridiculous! IMO IMO, I think teams should only be limited to two to three pick ups from the same age level and division or next age level older and same level major 50s can only pick up major 55s and so on. Sorry for the long post! |
| Dec. 2, 2015 jimperry19 69 posts | I think if you are going to ban Tim from defending himself then you should delete the posts that are taking shots at Tim. He was trying to bring everyone's attention to what a lot of us think is a problem with the system. Yes, he went overboard. Yes, he needs spellcheck and lots of work on grammar. He was trying to make a point for the benefit of the game that we love, not how I would have done it, but that's the route he chose. In my opinion, SSUSA is not going to ban shots at him, in fact by not stopping it, they are encouraging it, which is wrong. How about if all of us over 50 year old softball players just let it run it course, see if rules get changed but stop taking shots at a guy that can't defend himself. |
| Dec. 2, 2015 JamesLG 420 posts | Great post Jim Perry. I believe there needs to be changes also and possibly this will help make it happen. Some of us do have friends on teams that were effected and they are hoping for changes. thank You: James |
| Dec. 2, 2015 Stretch14 Men's 50 202 posts | He gave the sport a bad name. |
| Dec. 2, 2015 crusher Men's 75 524 posts | Great jimperry19. I totally believe you play with the players you first qualified. No pickups for the Worlds. Just not clean. That last statement is really much stronger to me than it sounds to you probably. Nasty, gutter. No HONORABLE to play those that did not bring you. James |
| Dec. 2, 2015 Slap hitter 28 posts | Jimperry19--With all due respect, I went back and read every post, and in my opinion, I don't see any bashing except maybe mine ( and olden slow). Now maybe our definition of bashing is different, so please let me know the post or posts that you see as bashing vs people thanking SSUSA for stopping the madness. I could be wrong. Now, I do think someone could say mine was a bash (and then olden slow came in after) but, if you have been following the almost 2 months of madness of ALL the crap Tim spewed on Cornerstone, Dave & Fran to only name a few, my reference to the 2% was "THE THEME " Tim HIMSELF kept referring back to, (in an arrogant way, in my opinion). So I don't see it as a bash, only a cleaver CLOSE to this hullabaloo! An attempt for some levity to this madness. Been playing over 30 years and I have never been on this board until I heard Tim was bashing and spewing crap about me and my Cornerstone teammates. I believe there are a lot of people that want to BASH Tim, me included. If I wanted to bash him, I could! But it's not worth it...He's not worth it. I do believe it's easier for people to sit back and "take the high road" when it's NOT YOUR reputation that has been in question and slandered. Anyone who is reading this, Put yourself in Cornerstones position, in Dave and Frans position. He spewed for almost 2 months, it's only been a day and a half. Unfortunately, at some level, he deserves everything "opinion post" he gets. The big question is...If he was still on the board...Would he get it yet? |
| Dec. 2, 2015 Allan55 102 posts | I would like to turn this thread to finding a solution to the problem of adding players just before the World Tournament. One of the main reasons the message board exits is to discuss items of importance and allow input, which could possibly lead to improved rules and a better association. I would like to give my opinion and challenge others to voice their opinions that would improve this situation. I know you can find holes in my thoughts, but here goes. Over the last few years, more and more players have been picked up just before the World Tournament. If you pick up one or two players, this can change the dynamics of the team. An average team can become much better. This also belittles the qualification process. However, I understand there are injuries along the way, so I can bend a little in this area. For this reason, I feel a team should be able to pick up no more than two players. These two players should also be the same playing level (EX: 50 AAA team picking up a player of 50 AAA rating or lower...not 55 Major; or 50 Major team picking up a 50 Major player...not 55 Major Plus). A team consisting of ten players could only pick up two players to total twelve players. If a team had seven players, they would not be able to go. If they had eight players, they would have a choice to play with ten (I would not recommend it.) or not play. This would force teams to make sure they had enough players to go and add additional players if injuries occurred earlier. I welcome other views. Maybe, together, we can improve this situation. |
| Dec. 3, 2015 southernson 280 posts | It's not too far fetched to get different answers from different people especially when it comes to rules. I went to play in a National, and the same player I had asked **** to get added to my roster to play, ended up playing for Florida Automated Shade for it's multiple winner of the same rated National Championship without being bumped up. So I was more than a little surprised.... But ***** from SSUSA told me no (we had an injury to OF and SS) only to have ***** from SSUSA tell Florida Automated Shade yes. Strange to be sure, and it's something I couldn't explain to my team. If you play in a lot of SSUSA tournaments, your bound to have some familiarity with the SSUSA group. So you might get some different answers. Of course we won that tournament, so I never asked for any reason why. But if you play long enough, you are going to see some non-understandable situations. Agreed, Tim may have not gone about it the right way, but I might be asking the tournament director the same question at the field. So how does that happen? Do I believe somebody should pick up be able to pick up players for a National 5 days for a tournament? Clearly NO, unless you have dropped below 11 players and that's what I was told. But after all, "Managers must APPLY to SSUSA for approval of these players in writing. These players are approved or denied on an individual basis." It isn't egos, or some cheap piece of wood if you win, it's about the CASH expended to get there, that's the issue! And therein lies the rub..... |
| Dec. 3, 2015 Crusher23 Men's 55 53 posts | The tournament add-on rules are fine the way they are: What is important is that you cannot add a player from a higher skill level, regardless of whether they are from your age bracket or the next age bracket up. Plain and simple. This prevents, for example, 55 Major+ players from dropping down to play 50 Major as tournament add-ons. I think we need to take a moment and remind ourselves why the turny add-on rules even exist in the first place: They are there simply to help teams to be able to attend the tournament. They work, they’re good rules - without them, many teams would never even be able to attend, for example, the Vegas tournament – the turny would then be much smaller and subsequently less desirable. If that’s what you want, then go ahead, lobby for no add-ons and watch the Vegas tournament deteriorate from something special down to just another tournament. That would suck. However, I’m not oblivious to the fact that there are plenty of teams that take advantage of the add-on rules in an attempt to improve their rosters for the tournament. Personally I could care less, but hey I get it, and so does SSUSA - This is why the part of the rules that states “Managers must APPLY to SSUSA for approval of these players in writing. They are approved on an individual basis” exists. I don’t mean to speak on behalf of SSUSA but it appears that this part of the rules is in place so as to allow the SSUSA to police attempts to abuse the add-on rules, which is ultimately what everyone has been discussing on here since Tim started this whole debacle. It’s a good set of rules, it’s a good system, it does work. Now, if you think that the SSUSA is failing in its attempts to enforce/police the rules, then that is a different issue and perhaps should be approached as such. Maybe they just simply need an extra hand, it seems to me that they’re pretty overloaded with a ton of work and are having a hard time keeping up with things – we all know how it is when you’re crazy busy and understaffed, it’s easy to just “rubber stamp” everything that comes across your desk, such as player add requests. Just saying…. From what I can tell, all the frustration around this issue seems to center around the fact that certain players were approved by SSUSA to be added onto certain teams. If you feel these players shouldn’t have been approved as add-ons by SSUSA then why not simply address that point? Argue that these approvals were poor decisions. I do now believe that since this issue has been brought forward (and beaten to death) that the SSUSA will more than likely place a higher level of scrutiny on player add requests going forward. I would suspect this topic will probably be much less of an issue in the future… Disclaimer: THIS IS JUST A HUMBLE OPINION FROM SOMEONE ON THE EAST COAST. I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE WITH, OR SLANDER ANYONE AND I APOLOGIZE AHEAD OF TIME TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT BE OFFENDED BY ANYTHING IN THIS POST. Also, I do not know anyone on any of the teams involved in any of the prior posts on this topic, nor do I know anyone on this message board. I could care less who added who to what team. I am just bored at work, had too much coffee, and here I am thinking that I make sense. I will reread my post later and probably get a good chuckle out of it… |
| Dec. 3, 2015 16wood Men's 65 77 posts | "Managers must APPLY to SSUSA for approval of these players in writing. These players are approved or denied on an individual basis." This has been the rule for some time now. It allows for some subjectivity, which is a positive to some and negative to others. The REAL place to affect rule change is at the annual Rules Committee meeting. If I felt strongly about the rule I'd go to Reno. In reading the posts on this subject matter, before and after Tim was banned, the general feeling is that ANY added M+ player AUTOMATICALLY improves the team beyond their level of play. Is EVERY M+ player better than M players in his own age group (let alone those 5 years younger)? I recognize that Tim and Swing feel this way, based upon their comments. But I argue the fact that the last two teams in the 50 M event (who had a lot of 55 M+ guys) does not, in of itself, offer any level of substantiation to this position. Small samplings and coincidence are hard to separate. It seems to me that if this theory were accurate there would be little reason to play the games. We've played younger M teams for 12-13 years now in the pre-season. Our record was better than .500 in the early years and less than .500 lately. To think that athleticism is the primary reason teams win is folly... it comes down to execution... we didn't execute as well lately as we had before. We're not proponents of picking up extra players for national tourneys unless we've had a string of injuries... as a M+ team we're allowed 2 out of area players which we have seldom used (the exceptions being in the now defunct SSWS/NASCS which allowed 3 guys from outside a 150 mile radius and the pickups we utilized replaced injured guys or absentees). We 'dance with the ones we brung', too. We believe strongly in team unity... we don't replace healthy players. BW |
| Dec. 3, 2015 jimperry19 69 posts | Two quick things: Crusher23's disclaimer is one of the funniest things I have ever read on this board. Also, Slap hitter, when I put my post up yesterday about taking shots at a guy that can't defend himself I was overlooking what you pointed out about your reputation being brought into question, and you are right that it is easier to take the "high road" when not personally involved with the situation. I am sorry for overlooking that. I hope all of you have a good holiday season with your families, and a healthy 2016 season. |
| Dec. 3, 2015 Crusher23 Men's 55 53 posts | Heh heh. Just killing time with a smile brother... |
| Dec. 3, 2015 Olden Slow Men's 75 209 posts | Here is my take..I don't know Tim or Slap..But the question was asked and answered. It will never make everyone happy, but the answers seldom do..I have no agenda but just enjoy the fact that I am 67 and can still play at a decent level is a positive..SSUSA, I am sure will address this issue in due time..In the mean time, I will continue to enjoy what playing days I have left..Hope everyone has a great holiday season.. |
| Dec. 3, 2015 Mario Men's 50 451 posts | It will be interesting next year when a bunch of 55 Major plus teams drop down and play in the 50 Major tourney now that they have set a precedent. I have already heard of teams that are going to do that. |
| Dec. 3, 2015 hitnrun5 Men's 70 72 posts | How come nobody is complaining that Joe Brown's Allstars 60 major plus team was allowed to play 55 major at the Phoenix Winter Worlds? Oh that's right, they won one game and lost five....I guess the major plus doesn't always dominate the lower major division! |
| Dec. 3, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | Probably True, Hitnrun 5... however there is a huge cliff between 60 and 55s not as huge from 50 to 55.. My take is the 55s lose a bit of speed fielding but top 55 plus guys can still hit with anyone in the country... Now from my standpoint, I see most Major teams with 2 to 3 players that are major plus type hitters, then to allow a team to pick up to 7 new guys on a roster(55 major plus players) that never played one inning for that team, is Loading a team! Say Next year a team picks up 7 of the Summerville guys that will be 55, and add them with the 2 to 3 guys that are major plus type ball players on a Major team.. you will have 9 major plus hitters on a major team.. Does that sound fair to the Major division, or any lower division? There has to be some decorum on what you are allowed to do that doesn't ruin what all major teams have been playing for. IMO |
| Dec. 3, 2015 crump22 Men's 50 60 posts | Mario, when Tim 55 major plus team played in the 50 major, that was NOT a new precedent, that rule been in place a long time,the only thing you can,t do if have any 50 player on your team and you can,t have the 2 out of region player on your team, Motown 50 major played Ruth 55 major Plus team in Vegas in 09, everyone on this board that ever manager know of that rule, because of their dislike for Tim, they pretending that Tim team broke some rule,Again that is a OLD RULE.SSUSA require 55major plus to play against 50 major in all of their NIT,55major plus do not play 55major in NIT, |
| Dec. 3, 2015 bkb555 301 posts | seems like a lot of comments for and against Tim's 2 month rant...obviously SSUSA should look at the message NOW and not the messenger.....Tim's delivery might have been over the TOP but myself as an innocent bystander, this sounds like an issue that happens more often than not |
| Dec. 3, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | Most of these posts are right on the money in regards to trusting SSUSA and wanting to move on, and I appreciate that. It is always better when level heads prevail. |
| Dec. 3, 2015 donll 68 posts | Swing I agree with you. Having 9 50 major plus players, or even 12 -15 like Tim did doesnt seem fair to the major division. You might want to ask Tim why he just did that. |
| Dec. 3, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | Donll, Tim admitted that with his teams success this year they shouldn't of been aloud to play in the Major division. We did talk about that and that was Tims take... Just to be clear, I'm not saying Cornerstone picked up 8 Major plus players, I'm saying that the way the rules state you could load a team with up to 8 55 major plus talent to a team like my Warrior team that has some talented guys on it and drop the bottom half off our team, We would be a no doubt Major plus 50 team competing in 50 major division.. I just see the rule set up for teams to load up.. I think the rule should change so that you couldn't do this... It will be done in the future the way it's set up! |
| Dec. 4, 2015 rightrj1 Men's 55 286 posts | I sure hear a lot of Whining!!! "Oh you have 55 major plus players on your team and that's cheating cause we only have 50 Major players on our roster" Cut the crap guys! Leave it on the field! Whatever happen to let's play ball and the best team wins! SSUSA rates the players based on teams wins, bring your skills shut up and play! doesn't matter what age you are! It would be nice to go back to 1 division 50-60 age group division Winner takes all. Then 60-70 This would stop all the so call cheating or stacking of teams! you bring your guys, I bring mine, Let's play! |
| Dec. 4, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | ronnie, if it is about the Major plus division I agree.. but when you are talking about a lower division, meaning not the best in the country! Then you have to protect that division from Stacking teams! I understand that most teams pick up guys for worlds! I am not calling anyone cheaters.. Do you think next year it would be fair to drop 7 to 8 guys from my warriors roster and pick up 7 to 8 Summys 55 year olds? One again, this has nothing to do with this year... I discuss, no whining here! |
| Dec. 4, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | should of read once again on my last sentence... I am discussing rules going forward, and I am pointing out what could happen under our current system in place! I would love to hear from everyone if they think picking up to 7 or 8 players(And I know Cornerston did not pick up this many..) for any Major or lower division for worlds is fair? This is permitted with our current rules FYI why have qualifiers? |
| Dec. 4, 2015 rightrj1 Men's 55 286 posts | Rickie, I hear ya! but I don't agree..This is RECEATIONAL SOFTBALL, I don't care if the old steel's team came back from the dead and entered into the tourney, they still would have to beat us on the field! If the weaker teams aren't smart enough to play bye the rules as said forth, then why feel sorry for them! I thought we were all big boys here! If the rules allow you to pickup whomever is available, then so be it! Let's Play! winner take all! |
| Dec. 4, 2015 Slap hitter 28 posts | Crusher 23 and 16 wood-- Nice posts! Nice summary! Jimperry 19--I piggy back that crushers last paragraph was hysterical. Lmao! Also, thanks for your reply about understanding how the people slandered are taking it a little more personally and rightfully so. No harm no foul...NEVER took it as a shot at us! All good! These conversations/rants/opinions/ETC have been going on for decades and will go on for decades more. You CAN'T make everyone happy all the time, every time UNFORTUNATELY! Dave and Fran have a tough job and are doing a great job! Apply for the job if you think you can do better. My advice...Yes, always be aware of the rules and protecting the integrity of the game! BUT, if that is your main focus and it MENTALLY distracts you from batting practice and ANYTHING else that helps you from getting better ON THE FIELD...Its on YOU! |
| Dec. 4, 2015 LeeLee50 140 posts | donll, Really you are going to ask that same question again. You have answered my question your not a real funny guy. Did you ever watch the Fat Albert cartoon, you remind me a character Donald he had a nickname. To answer your dumb question again because we could by the rules and we wanted to play some more softball in LV. You are beginning to remind of Tim. |
| Dec. 4, 2015 STL0 Men's 60 230 posts | With respect to this whole discussion, does anyone think it is a pretty ridiculous process for people to fly across the country to attend a meeting in order to discuss a rule change? I laugh every time staff posts that. Here's the conversation at home. Hey hun...I know you're not very excited about me being gone a lot of weekends and the money we put towards softball but I just wanted to let you know that I've got one more trip this year. It'll just cost about $600 so we can discuss possible rule changes...are you cool with that? In all seriousness, that's not a process that will ever get you any kind of consensus on rule changes that SSUSA members think are needed. Since I hate complaints without a solution, let people suggest rule changes via email and only include comments from registered SSUSA members from their registered SSUSA email addresses. Pick the top 5 items and put rule changes out to a vote using a similar process. Or let each registered team have 1 vote and only votes from registered team managers count. Just throwing it out for discussion and probably should have started a new thread but this thread is already all over the board. |
| Dec. 4, 2015 neck10 714 posts | there's already enough rule's let's just play ball. |
| Dec. 4, 2015 Slap hitter 28 posts | Amen Neck10! |
| Dec. 4, 2015 STL0 Men's 60 230 posts | Neck10/ Slap hitter: I am always one to just jump on the field and play so I understand what you're saying but if they are really going to change rules and want to get a quorum or consensus, the current process doesn't allow for that. |
| Dec. 4, 2015 donll 68 posts | LeeLee. I heard that explanation from both you and Mango. i'm not buying it. If Tim just really wanted to play some more softball why didn’t he take his team stacked with 50 major plus players and enter the 50 major plus tournament that weekend? It was going on that weekend as well. I heard he cut 3 of his friends at the beginning of the season to get out of the 50 major plus division he was rated in and play 55 for a few months so he could sneak back in the 50 major. In other words he cut his friends and added others to try and win the ring he claims he doesn’t care about. He took a team loaded with 50 major plus players into the major division world series. And then came on here and bragged about what a great thing it was he did. And then whined incessantly and incorrectly about another team adding one player. Again if he just “wanted to play more softball” he could have done that in the 50 major plus division. Heck he could have even added back the friends that he cut in his attempt to win a ring. He needs to man up,quit his crying, and play in the division he belongs in. And he needs to stop pretending that he has softball's best interest at heart with that type of shameful behavior. He has Tim's best interest at heart! |
| Dec. 4, 2015 Joncon 328 posts | At least he livened things up in here. Hell, I even miss Einstein's hard ball rants. You see, my life has no drama so I need to find it somewhere else :) Also, I'm not a fan of any kind of censorship but, it's not my board to run. |
| Dec. 4, 2015 Thin2Win 2 posts | WOW Really? Banned? For freedom of speech? Sure am glad all you "Thanking" fran & dave for banning the one guy who shows he has a set and stands up and shouts it when something isn't right! Let me guess you are the ones who voted for the clown that's running this Country into the ground, sorry ran! You were the guys that got stuffed in the lockers and had their underwear pulled over their heads in the hallway for running to the teachers because the other kids were cooler than you were! What a bunch of pansies, "thank you" for banning a guy (like him or hate him) that has brought tons of positive change for this "hobby" that we kill ourselves week in and week out? For all associations from kids game to ours! Wow how about "THANK YOU TIM" for calling out those that are wrong and bringing light to major issues that need to be addressed? "Thank You Tim for standing up for all of us and being the voice for all the voiceless ones that don't have a set , instead bitch and complain amongst our bp buddies but in open forums pretend we're on the "right" side for our benefit. Is this not an open forum? A Softball Message board? A place to have softball discussions good, bad or indifferent? So I'm assuming since you banned him from the board he's banned from all things ssUSA? Or his money is still good as long as he doesn't have a voice that challenges ssUSA? So how about at the top of the board there are rules that say bringing light to issues that need addressing or challenging higher ups will get you a lifetime ban from the board but please still come on out and play ball cause your money is still green! I have zero dog in this fight but seeing all you guys pulling your skirts up makes me sick! Go ahead censorship at its finest, 5, 4, 3, 2 delete..... CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT! |
| Dec. 4, 2015 Dbax Men's 65 2100 posts | A true pansie posts anonymously. |
| Dec. 4, 2015 LeeLee50 140 posts | donll, You need to go get some help this diarrhea of the mouth is getting really bad. We the team voted on playing 50 or 55 Major Plus and the 2 guys that were 50, even voted for us to play 55 Major Plus. Fat Albert's friend that would be you the 2 50 years old guys played all year with in our Nor Cal tournaments and have already played 55's with us for 2016 season. Sh*t they already had all the MTC gear at beginning of the year in (2015). You can think what you want about Tim, my TEAMMATE, he would never pull any BS, Bush League thing like that towards anyone of our teammates. I have already ask you who you play for but, you can't seem to find the keys to spell you team name go figure. Your are nothing more thank a internet BS Bully. Once again we all thank you for valuable words of wisdom on Tim and our TEAM. |
| Dec. 4, 2015 LeeLee50 140 posts | Before you even get started,I believe Tim's complaint is against the process of how players and the number of players and the skill level of players are allowed to be added to rosters for Worlds. I will say, I do not agree on how he presented this to SSUSA and all of the members (players) including you donll. |
| Dec. 5, 2015 titanhd Men's 60 638 posts | Thin2 Win. You ranted and then claimed that you have "zero dog in the fight". It sure sounds like you do, and his name is TIM! |
| Dec. 5, 2015 LeeLee50 140 posts | titanhd, I guess you could assume that I have a dog in the fight? I believe most teammates would stand up for another one if someone was posting false untrue statements regarding him and our teams decision to play 55 Major Plus. I am and always have been against the thread in regarding this issue with Tim. I am just stating my opinion of what he complaining about. It got way out hand for me and I expressed my feelings to TIM. It was a Tim thing in regards to issue on the rules, my thing is trying to call my teammate a liar and selfish win at all cost guy. Asking anybody on our team, those are things TIM isn't. I just believe in supporting my teammates and trying to be the best teammate I can. I would do exact same thing for anyone of my Teammates. I always have and always will. Happy Holiday Season |
| Dec. 5, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | Lee Lee, I have to friends on your team.. Two of my best friends.. one 60 years old and one 53 to start this season.. Mike told me that he told the team to go to 55 this year and he would play north cal events with the team and wait a year for SSUSA... Tim cutting two 50 year olds isn't even close to the truth. Tim was not so PC about his delivery of his thoughts, however when you look at what is possible with adds to a WMC roster, there seems to be some room for improvement.. The way I look at it is, you could build a Major plus team to compete in the Major division with the way the rules are.. Any team being able to pick of a potential of 7 to 8 new guys that have never played one inning with that said team is a travesty to the division...why have Qualifiers? |
| Dec. 5, 2015 Thin2Win 2 posts | I really could care less who it was that was ranting about issues that affected the biggest tournament of the year. Wrong doings are wrong doings and to point them out on a "open forum" because the wrong doings were than covered up so customers don't see the truths was the only available ave. to ban somebody to silence them I guess is the American way? Thought we were passed that in this day and age but obviously not. Take it how you want but silencing anybody that is trying to better the game for any reason is flat out wrong. If mistakes were made than step up and own them make the right decisions correct them than move on. Or hide in the weeds, silence people, rally up the ones who have something to benefit from the support than go on the attack (as long as the one being attacked can't defend himself that is)! Good day to all. |
| Dec. 5, 2015 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Thin2win-who was hiding in the bushes? SSUSA had their annual convention and was waiting for him to come-IN PERSON-and make his case. He did not have to pay the $175 attendance fee. If it meant so much to him all he had to do was go and make his case the proper way-to the committee. They would have given him the latitude to say whatever he wanted to. But HE chose to make his charges here-which is only a message board-not a forum for making a case in a situation like this. He crossed the line numerous times calling Fran, Dave, and Terry liars, and did it hiding behind the keyboard. It appears that SSUSA acted well within the existing guidelines, but maybe the guidelines need to be re-examined. Tim could have presented his plan or suggestion to the committee for consideration to change the way the rules are written. Whether he was right or wrong about the issue-Tim did this the wrong way, and that's why he was banned. He had every chance to do it right. |
| Dec. 5, 2015 Dbax Men's 65 2100 posts | Well said Mark. This guy has been no where around during this entire ordeal. Now Tim is banned. My guess is Tim found this clown to continue posting this never ending saga. |
| Dec. 5, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | I gotta stick up for LeeLee a little bit. I take him at his word that Tim is a good teammate if he says so. I'll go a little stronger than LeeLee in regards to Tim and say that he went about it in a crappy and offensive way. With that said, Tim believes he is doing the right thing There comes a point though, when Tim must learn to use common sense, good research BASED UPON FACTS, and present them in a logical manner in the appropriate arena. Tim didn't do that... Yet. Some may disagree, but if you know the TRUTH of how things went down this year, I don't think it was as bad as some are saying. If you look at the bracket scores, MTC DID NOT "pound" their way into the finals. Also, Cornerstone came from behind in all of their games after playing L.A.F. Either team could have lost,and MTC did... Once. Please don't be offended by this next part. It is meant to help those who don't get it. And it made the difference in all of the close games: Neither of the two teams composed primarily of 55+ players imposed total domination. After watching other games, including the national, and fighting through our games, I know that most of the front running Major teams shot themselves in the foot, a bunch of times - Solo homers, DBO;s, defensive blunders, and poor decisions on the field. It was not "physical superiority" on the part of the 55 guys. There were many, many ... er ah... not so smart plays by the losers. Every team we played was, overall, faster and stronger. And that's a fact. Think about it, at the Major level, people should start to figure out how to quit making the simple, but big mistakes, time after time, after time!! Again, no offense meant. |
| Dec. 5, 2015 Bballer3 21 posts | ---- Just some food for thought... No matter how you want to spin it, there were more 55 major plus players in the championship game than 50 major players. Very simple solution but the SSUSA might lose out on some cash if for some reason a FEW less teams are in because they wont be able to pick up half a team to take to championships. The above poster had it right.... just call it the 50-60 open division and lets play.... I bet you would see a lot more stronger teams. Because that is what is going to happen anyway...one team at a time. Same thing started with the bats... Once you start losing to teams that are doing things that dont seem right, you will have other teams following just to keep up. |
| Dec. 6, 2015 Benji4 Men's 55 289 posts | For those of you that are teammates of Tim I commend you for standing up to him. I immediately stand up for my Sommerville teammates every time Tim attacks them. Tim made his point we all can agree. But he made his point 600 times completely acting like a whiny biatch then accusing Dave and Fran of some type of conspiracy. I don't think people care that Tim makes his point it's the whining, crying, drama, and bitching that goes along with it. Hell I miss talking crap to Tim so now I have to go to the old scout board. thin2win you are right Tim probably did get his lunch money taken at school, put in a locker, and had his underwear pulled over his head that's why he is so afraid to play at the highest level and complains about all of us that work hard daily to get better. It's called competitiveness....... Tim has none........ And for the record I did not vote for the clown who runs this country. I personally don't know Dave or Fran but if they made a decision then Tim needed to live with it and if he didn't like it then call them directly and discuss it..... And I agree with Dbax put your name in your posts so we all can know who you are. If you don't know me I bat leadoff for the team Tim hates the most SOMMERVILLE.............. |
| Dec. 6, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | Bballer: I get your point, but here is some food for thought for you (or more spin): When I played 50M+, we had to spot 55M+ teams runs, and we always beat them - rather easily. Similarly, when we aged to 55M+ and played the local 50M+ team, we always lost. With that said, a 50M team which places in the top two or three at the Worlds is assumed to be ready to play at the 50M+ level, being the best the Majors has to offer. And the rules of bumping teams agrees. Expecting to get bumped, shouldn't the potential 50M+ teams have been able to beat the 55 teams? I will add that either of the last four teams we faced could have (should have??) won the tournament. But they made a few more mistakes and/or did not get the breaks. Never being able to please everyone, SSUSA did a pretty good job of keeping things reasonably even and highly competitive. Lastly, I did not mean to "short" L.A.F. in my last post. They took us to extra innings in a very tough, well played game. THEN, came the remaining back-and-forth come from behinds - All tough, all even... |
| Dec. 6, 2015 Cuervo13 33 posts | Didn't millette play A/AA/major for 25 years plus? Don't think that's being scared to play the best and highest level Not a fan of his antics at all he seems to like to stir the pot constantly though |
| Dec. 6, 2015 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | I debated Tim several times here. I admit I DO NOT understand the mentality of wanting to be re-rated down. Personally, I want to play the best, and if I come up short, then so be it. But I can understand guys that have changed as they have gotten older to enjoy the game more and be less competitive. The discussions passed the time and could be stimulating at times. And I enjoy someone that will have intelligent debates. Einstein was another that could do that, but he crossed the line, too, by a long shot. But I miss the debates with him. I understand Tim is a heck of a player, and maybe that's why I don't understand the urge to move DOWN. But, by banning him SSUSA did not infringe on his free speech rights. They just punished him for crossing the line and not pursuing the issue in the proper avenues available to him. Free speech comes with responsibility. And we, as Americans, have too often lost track of that. |
| Dec. 6, 2015 Slap hitter 28 posts | Webbie25...Your last four sentences are spot on! WELL DONE! As far as winding down and being less competitive and want to play for fun... Not fair to your teammates unless ALL are are the same page. I don't see MTC on that page. That's what Rec ball is for. Challenging yourself to be the best you can be and play the best teams you can play, make victory even SWEETER! FUN is working hard, FUN is earning it, FUN is coming together as a TEAM... Winning is a "bi product" of the upper sentence. Your team is only as strong as your weakest link! |
| Dec. 6, 2015 Bballer3 21 posts | Cat43 - you make all valid points and I dont disagree with you at all. I just feel that a good 55M+ team will be able to send a LOT of the 50M teams home, which hurts the integrity of the 50M division . That was my point. I do agree with you about the top 50M teams being able to beat the 55M+ teams that wants to enter - but what about the mid level team that might be there for the first time? - they go home because they they get knocked out by a bunch of 55M+ players? - you would probably be inclined to follow suit and look to cheery pick some of these outstanding 55M+ players. I really do feel that they should have a 50-60 open division because thats what they will be having shortly the way the rules are now. I could care less because I love facing the best teams, no matter division we play. |
| Dec. 7, 2015 OZ40 549 posts | Good God, who says senior men don't enjoy the soap operas? ZZZZzzzz...sleepy....zzzzzzzz. |
| Dec. 7, 2015 TheCat43 Men's 55 26 posts | Bballer: I think we're in basic agreement. In regards to mid level teams, or those which are there for the first time: Hey, I've been there. That's what it's all about... Seeing where you stand (testing your metal), learning, and then, FOLLOWING THE LAST FOUR SENTENCES OF SLAPPY'S POST (just above your last post - starting with "Challenging yourself..."). Practice, Practice... And guys that will work together and continue to learn... Attitude... |
| Dec. 7, 2015 michael697 22 posts | softball you mean that sport that means nothing and what kids plays in grade school for fun!!!! ya that's it. ridiculous that this stupid conversation still has legs. crap there goes 90 seconds of my life I will never get back just for writing this. |
| Dec. 7, 2015 southernson 280 posts | Guys I truly have no direct dog on either side of the fence, but this thread is no better than the other one that was deleted. |
| Dec. 7, 2015 SSUSA Staff 3483 posts | The SSUSA Rules Committee discussed the competition related aspects of this matter at last week's Annual Convention in Reno, where: • The Committee unanimously ratified that the SSUSA Home Office was fully in compliance with the Official Senior Softball-USA Rulebook, at §4.2(2) on pages 20-21, regarding the World Master Championships roster composition of 50-Major Champion Cornerstone (OR). They also unanimously ratified the previously published order of finish; • The Committee unanimously passed a rules amendment that would prevent an older future Major Plus team from automatically being allowed to "play down" one younger age group and one rating level at the World Masters Championships; and • The Committee did NOT discuss the Message Board administrative decision previously applied in the November 19th ruling because the individual involved was not present to participate in any potential discussion. Accordingly, we consider the matter formally concluded and this THREAD IS CLOSED. |
