Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 3 members: Fulton15, MLGrif, TABLE SETTER 11; 55 anonymousDiscussion: 1 and 1 count
| Posted | Discussion |
| Nov. 15, 2017 rock21 5 posts | 1 and 1 count With time limits per game, how about speeding up games by batters starting with a 1ball and 1strike count. Standing in the outfield waiting for batters to swing before they get a strike sometimes or sometimes working the count to 3-2 can really be tough on fielders on very hot days as well. How many times do we not get into the 7th inning costing players more at bats and playing time? |
| Nov. 15, 2017 ffdonnie Men's 60 137 posts | Only if it comes with, no extra foul ball. That makes it worthless. I play in a league that does this. Stupid. |
| Nov. 15, 2017 B.J. 1105 posts | or how about having your pitcher throw more 1st pitch strikes...I dont know how many games I work where the pitcher goes 3 and o before he then throws a strike to the batter |
| Nov. 15, 2017 r4pitch 92 posts | Please 1-1 count with a foul ...Anyone under65 played this the last 20 years .Speeds up game ..makes a more enjoyable game Vegas we made out of the 5th one time the championship game were we had to go 7 |
| Nov. 17, 2017 Crusher23 Men's 55 53 posts | It would seem to me that more first pitch strikes would solve the issue. |
| Nov. 18, 2017 r4pitch 92 posts | Not really ....1-1 count is used everywhere but senior ball why..... |
| Nov. 18, 2017 marcster13 102 posts | 1 n 1 no foul was used in 2017 40's as a one year trial. People seemed to like it. I do not know if they are doing that in Phoenix this weekend since it is a 2018 turny. Kinda curious about that. |
| Nov. 18, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | marcster ... The "1-1/no waste foul" trial for the 40-Masters divisions was a one-year trial that began after the Annual Rules Committee sessions last fall ... The Phoenix tournament concludes that one year period known as "2017" ... The topic will be on the Rules Committee agenda later this month for decisions on retention for the 40-Masters and potential expansion to other age groups ... |
| Nov. 18, 2017 titanhd Men's 60 638 posts | Played in Naples at winter worlds.I watched the 40's play. The 1-1 count did nothing to speed up the game and the games that I watched were all shortened by time limit. |
| Nov. 18, 2017 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | How can a 1-1 count NOT speed up the game? Wouldn't it be mathematically impossible not to with less pitches to get to the run limit? The answer is it DOES speed up the pace of play and that's what we're looking for ... more game action, less standing around and more of a chance to play 7 innings! |
| Nov. 18, 2017 r4pitch 92 posts | 1-1 count does speed up the games trying to get more than 5 innings of play..The pace of play is just better..Less standing around and more playing..The 40s were not using a foul..I will gladly take 1-1 with a foul most will enjoy more action on the field..... |
| Nov. 18, 2017 titanhd Men's 60 638 posts | Not sure what the 40's "not using a foul" statement implied.Logically no grace foul should save time.I'm Not saying 1-1 doesn't make for a faster "paced game".I'm saying that until we stop throwing the a ball around after an out, stop throwing pitches between inning,having 2-3 runners an inning, and not hustling on and off the field the time limits will still cause us to play less than 7 inning games. Not speaking on conjecture, Again I saw no 7 inning games in the 40's using the 1-1 count.Extra foul ball or not. |
| Nov. 19, 2017 stattad Men's 65 235 posts | Just played a non-SSUSA tournament with a 1-1 count. I was not a fan before the tourney, but am a fan now. We had no trouble getting to the 7th inning. Yes, I had to swing at some pitches I wouldn't have swung at with a 0-0 count, but it does speed the game up. I also think it lowers scores a little, which is a good thing. |
| Nov. 19, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | titanhd ... Not sure which tourney you observed without a 7-inning game in the 40's, but I had a different experience at the World Masters Championships in Las Vegas last month ... I was the Field Director for the 18-team 40-AAA division that played 58 games in the tournament at BLD ... All 58 games reached at least the 7th inning, a few went extra innings, and the entire tournament was at or ahead of schedule all three days playing "1-1/NO waste foul" ... You are right on the money with your recitation of the things that result in wasted time, leading to lesser innings played ... |
| Nov. 19, 2017 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | Limit the pitcher to one warm up pitch at the start of the inning. Yes, hustle but that's tough to enforce. Another thing that can help the pace of play is ELIMINATE the ridiculous mound visits. This is slowpitch, "strategy" doesn't need to be micro managed at the mound by a Sparky Anderson wannabe! It can wait until you're in the dugout or yell out "hey walk this guy". |
| Nov. 20, 2017 HAT MAN Men's 50 229 posts | 1 and 1 should stay. We won it at winter worlds and played all 7 innings every single game. Only once in the top of the 7th inning 1x did an umpire state time has expired. So 1 and 1 is a win in my book. NOW PLEASE CHANGE THE SECOND PLACE PRIZE TO AT LEAST A BALL CAP WORN IN THIS GENERATION LOL Those caps are sorry. Go with Pacific Headwear, richardson, new era. The vendors can get you them at a great price. |
| Nov. 20, 2017 marcster13 102 posts | Dave- Sorry, I read "season 2017" as just the playing season of 2017 not the year of 2017. I do hope it is installed again. |
| Nov. 20, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | markster13 ... You read it right ... The Rules Committee meets after the Winter National's/World's, so it's a bit of a timing difference ... The key thing is that the one-year trial is done and it's back to the convention and Rules Committee next week ... |
| Nov. 22, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | Every year we beat this dead horse. Speaking as an umpire and player the 1-1 starting count does not necessarily speed up the game because not every batter takes the count full every time at bat. It's up to the individual player to speed the game up. On defense, the game is sped up, players are more into the game alert and ready playing behind a pitcher that tosses strikes. Make more defensive plays, less errors, avoid the common delays (pinch runners not ready, snailing on and off the field between innings, not ready to bat, throw more strikes, throwing infield practice balls every inning, etc.) There are a myriad of other hidden time wasters in today's senior game and somehow we continue to invent more every season. The problem isn't in the count, it's in us in our capacity as players. This notion that simply going to a 1-1 count will be some sort of panacea is wrong. It hasn't worked in the non-senior tournament circuit and leagues so why would it work on a senior (slower) level? Throwing the first two pitches for strikes is better than a 1-1 count. |
| Nov. 22, 2017 r4pitch 92 posts | OZ40 completely untrue 1-1 speeds up play ...as a pitcher i never just throw strikes ..you get ahead then it is time to make a close non strike.just as a batter takes more pitches when ahead ....1-1 does speed up the game ....it is used everywhere but senior ..... time for a change..... |
| Nov. 22, 2017 NYGNYY 215 posts | Looking at the posts it looks like if you're a pitcher---your all for the 1 & 1. I agree with OZ40. |
| Nov. 22, 2017 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | OZ40, The things you speak of that slow the game down are true but most of them are not enforceable. The 1-1 DOES help pace of play! USSSA has been using the 1-1 count forever, I think it's worked pretty well there! |
| Nov. 22, 2017 Crusher23 Men's 55 53 posts | More observations on pace of play: I'm pretty sure that in general USSSA, and ASA for that matter do not have a 5 run per inning rule (outside of senior ball of course) so the potential for 1/2 long inning is very real so those organizations definitely need some sort of external factor like 1-1 to speed up the game. There's no denying that a shortened count like this certainly helps. However, when I first started playing senior ball I figured that the 5 run per inning limit would be enough to speed up the game - and in theory it should. Hek, how long can it take to get 5 runs in? The answer is it shouldn't take long at all. From what I've seen, a huge contributing factor towards slowing down the pace of play is the abuse of the courtesy runner rule - this particular luxury is totally abused and wastes tons of time every game. I see it consistently across the board in Senior ball. Sometimes it seems like EVERY batter/runner is getting a courtesy runner when it is clearly not necessary at times. A total time waster. And then it seems that the courtesy runner process in general is never accomplished in any kind of a timely fashion as replacement runners are often not prepared to be running for someone. More wasted time, multiple times, every inning. And then there are those way too often instances when in the middle of an at-bat someone calls "time-out" and says something like "Hey, shouldn't we get someone to run for Fat Joe on second base? Who wants to run for him? Common, somebody run!". Then someone begrudgingly lumbers out to second base and of course Fat Joe walks his a$$ in to the bench. I guarantee you that if this rule is modified that you'll see many more games go the distance. All we need to do is perhaps tweak somethings like: if going to run for someone it has to be done before a pitch is thrown to the next batter. Perhaps we limit how many runners can be used each inning - I mean really, do we really need to run for EVERYONE each and every inning? That' ridiculous. Jut my 2 cents. |
| Nov. 22, 2017 bond_171513 Men's 55 79 posts | Couldn't agree more with Crusher. At the least, the CR should not be allowed for any runner after they reach second base - after only reaching 1st safely. Once they have advanced from initially being on first, there should be no CR for that player - excluding injury of course. I wouldn't mind if we adopted a rule as Crusher noted that the CR must enter before the 1st pitch to the next batter. |
| Nov. 22, 2017 Jon44 Men's 55 149 posts | Totally agree with crusher23 on the courtesy runner abuse. With that said, it's not fat Joe's fault he's overweight-- he is just big-boned (sorry Joe-- just telling it like it is). Cleaning up the courtesy runner abuse somehow will help a lot. The runner is never ready, there is constant confusion in the dug out deciding who should run, and teams call time to figure it all out, which wastes a lot of time. I also like the 1-1 count. I play a lot of young men softball still, and when I go up when there is 1-1 in play, I go up ready to hit and not taking a strike because I don't want to fall behind and have to hit a pitchers pitch. I see many senior players taking until they get a strike. This is a hitters game, and going to 1-1 count will have more people ready to hit when they get in the box. Just my opinion. |
| Nov. 22, 2017 garyheifner 649 posts | PLEASE pass the 1-1. I am an outfielder. But, looks like I might be pitching most of the time in our 11 tournaments. 0-0 means many more pitches for me in the heat and humidity of the Midwest. |
| Nov. 22, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | I have umpired U-Trip at the time they changed from a full count one-to-waste to a 1-1 starting count and the time saved was negligible because as stated before: not everyone takes a count full. I submit to you that most batters offer at one of the first 3 pitches anyway. If that is indeed the case then deep into a tournament or a close game as a hitter I want that extra pitch so maybe I can better help my team. Having pitched from time to time myself throwing strikes in senior ball was always the intention. A good pitcher observes where the batter is situated in the box. I would always rather nip an inner or outer corner or a front or back edge of the mat or maybe challenge the zone height either up or down and get a quick strike as opposed to "just throwing a ball" and hoping a seasoned hitter will offer at it, that in and of itself wastes time. I'm not a dawdler, I hustle, our coach is on top of who needs a runner and alerting us to that when they are coming up and I'm ready to run when needed. Just saying that there is an inherent amount of time needed to play a game and just as much or more time can be saved by each of us as individuals and as teams by hustling. |
| Nov. 23, 2017 genwa1 2 posts | Missing from this discussion is any data collection. Numerous causes for delays are outlined but there is no measurement of the impact of these causes. For example, courtesy runners are a clear delay but how much time per incident is lost and how many times per game does it happen? Before fundamentally changing the game with a 1-1 pitch count, game studies quantifying the impact of the various sources of delay are needed. This is very knowable data. Anecdotal experiences are not sound bases for such a significant change. If this proposal is to the point of a Rules Committee consideration, a more sound analysis is warranted. |
| Nov. 23, 2017 DCPete 409 posts | Come on now, it's simple math & numbers can't lie. With the 0 - 0 count the maximum pitches per an At Bat is SIX. With 1 - 1 the maximum is FIVE pitches with a courtesy foul or FOUR pitches without a courtesy foul. Even in the era of Fake News 4 or 5 is still less than 6 . . . |
| Nov. 23, 2017 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | I would definitely agree with the suggestion of one courtesy runner per 1/2 inning but probably not the older levels. Eliminating the "coaches" conferences on the mound is another way to help the pace of play. Regarding the 1 and 1 count, some people even question simple math! |
| Nov. 23, 2017 genwa1 2 posts | Ok DCPete: Please give me these simple math and numbers: How many batters consume 6 pitches in an at bat in a game? How long does it take for one pitch? The product of these two components will determine how much time can be saved. I prefer to reject conventional wisdom and consensus of thought in favor of actual studies. |
| Nov. 23, 2017 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | genwa1 makes a good point. On my 16 man roster team, only 2 men will take a pitch that results in two strikes. One leads the team in walks, the other is looking for just the right pitch. Of the rest, we hit the first strike that looks good. 1 - 1 count makes no difference time wise over 0- 0 count. I am also playing with a man next year who is notorious for hitting the first pitch as long as he can reach it, whether it is a strike or not. Surprisingly, he has such good bat control that he is a scary hitter with a high batting average, even though opposing pitchers try to make sure he sees nothing but bad balls. |
| Nov. 23, 2017 DCPete 409 posts | Genwa; there can be no study, actual or otherwise, that could prove that 6 pitches will be "consumed" more quickly than 4 or 5 pitches. Plus many batters are swinging at the 1st strike in the 1-1 count to avoid being in a 2-strike hole vs many hitters taking at least 1 strike in the 0-0 count because they can. Anyone that's played both knows this is true. |
| Nov. 23, 2017 ChiPrimeMarty Men's 60 104 posts | Many good points were made in this thread, but I agree with BCPete. Most hitters don't want to be in a 2 strike situation then have to swing at a marginal pitch, whereas hitters will routinely take the first in a 0-0 count. All the other suggestions to speed up the game are valid -- but all other things being equal, the 1-1 count will speed up the game. Furthermore, regardless of game time limits, I think the 1-1 count is better, period. This is such a hitter's game already. In a senior game dominated by hitters they still want the 0-0 count because it increases the chances of getting that big fat pitch to blast over the fence. To the extent hitters do swing at the first pitch with a 0-0 count, it is often because pitchers will throw a strike just to get ahead. With a 1-1 count batters need to be more aggressive on the first pitch, which elevates its importance and the pitcher's need to hit the corners. In my opinion it's a better game with a 1-1 count, and a little faster as well. Watching a pitcher play one hop catch with his teammate behind the plate is tedious, and should be reduced. |
| Nov. 24, 2017 L.Martin Men's 50 47 posts | I agree with the multiple courtesy per inning slowing down the game, but the 1-1 count with no foul defiantly speeded up the game in the 40 plus division this year in Vegas. |
| Nov. 25, 2017 The real deal Men's 70 114 posts | Does the 1 and 1 count speed up games? Probably a little. But it also might result in a few more walks, which could also slow the game down. The question about speeding up the game is interesting, because we get to play for an hour time limit either way. Maybe another way to speed the "pace of play" would be for the hitting team to stay up to bat for 2 innings at a time (clearing the bases after 3 outs) for the first 4 innings, then revert back to one inning at a time for the 5th, 6th, and 7th. All hell will break loose in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1... |
| Nov. 25, 2017 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | So, what I your goal? As a player, what is your goal? Is it to make the game move along at a faster pace? As a tournament director, what is your goal? Is it to keep on schedule? I have THE solution but you may not want to hear it. |
| Nov. 25, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | L.Martin ... "defiantly"? ... Pretty funny, but I would have maybe used "definitely" ... You are absolutely correct, though ... The 40-AAA division went 58 for 58 on 7-inning games in Las Vegas where I was their Field Director ... The real deal (and others using the incorrect terminology) ... There is NO intent to speed up the games ... The only intent is to maximize innings played in the same allotted time frames ... Those descriptions are not the same concept ... BruceinGa ... As a T.D. (and a member of the National Rules Committee), my desired goal is maximum innings played in the allotted time ... I oppose guaranteed all-7-inning games because the pace of play declines noticeably in those games ... Heck, when a timed game reaches the 6th inning before the "open" 7th, both teams seem to take their foot off the gas pedal, ignoring the "play with pace" approach they employed through the 5th to get there! |
| Nov. 25, 2017 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | Dave, I was just wondering the "real" reason/s by those wanting the 1-1 count. Playing seven innings is a good reason. I don't see that happening much if both teams score a lot of runs. |
| Nov. 25, 2017 RIK56 Men's 60 137 posts | Bruce my reason is i get more foul outs with 1-1 then with a full count. |
| Nov. 25, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | BruceinGa ... There are a lot of "real" reasons, depending, in my view, largely on players' personal experiences ... Most of the "youngsters" (60+ and younger) tend to favor 1-1 because that's all they played prior to senior ball ... Others, regardless of age, prefer 1-1 because that's what they play in leagues in their own geographic region ... Classic examples there are the Midwest, Central and Great Lakes areas, who strongly supported the 1-1 in the last membership preference survey ... There's also the opposing viewpoints known as Pitchers and Everyone Else! ... Pitchers tend to favor 1-1 as a balancing of their perception that the game is already too much structured in favor of the offense ... Regardless, I'm in the "maximize innings" goal as the best "real" reason ... More innings = more at-bats is pretty easy to support ... |
| Nov. 25, 2017 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | Math was never my best subject in school but 58 for 58 seems like a pretty good percentage for playing 7 inning games! |
| Nov. 25, 2017 Rainmans 42 posts | Every year this topic comes up – the never ending story (death and taxes). There are pros and cons of starting with a 0-0 or 1-1 count depending on where you stand (literally and figuratively). What is the real problem that needs to be solved, or is this a solution looking for a problem? Each game is different and its outcome (i.e., end early, go the distance, 1-0 score…) is predicated on numerous factors. I’m confused as to the bona fide rationale/justifications for wanting to change the established and agreed to rules of the game. Most of us have played for decades (time limits, without run rule limits…) and didn’t appear to have issues. Besides, we’re getting much older and in most cases much slower. There seems to be several approaches (not all inclusive) that have been voiced: attempt to get 7 innings of play in the time allotted for each game; reduce the amount of play time allotted for each game; increase the tournament revenue by getting more games played per day; play all 7 innings each game no matter the time it takes to complete; and there are a few more. Possible solutions to eliminate the spirited debate are, speed up the games times, reduce the amount of time on the field for each game, and increase the revenue for each tournament might by going to a ‘one pitch’ format. I don’t believe this would be the format of choice but, then again, I have been proven wrong many times in my life. |
| Nov. 26, 2017 NYGNYY 215 posts | I agree with Rainmans. For all of you wanting 1 & 1, for all your reasons such as 7 innings and speeding the game up. Go to the one pitch format. That will solve all of your issues. And just to be clear, most of us in our early 60s did not grow up with the 1 & 1 count. We played the game until it was over. Then local towns figured out a way to make more money and decided to go for more teams and same number of fields. Thus shorting the games with time limits. Sound familiar |
| Nov. 26, 2017 SSUSA Staff 3485 posts | This is from a post following the most recent "1-1 count" member preference survey about five years ago ... It's probably reasonable to presume for sake of discussion that the age groups in favor of the 1-1 count will advance one 5-year age group from the data at that time ... __________ RE-POST FROM 01/07/2013 (regarding the December/January, 2012/2013 "1-1 count" membership preference survey) • The ONE & ONE COUNT Survey voting period has now closed, as of 5:00 PM EST on 01/07/13. Here are the FINAL RESULTS as voted by the 5,143 respondents expressing an opinion. • TOTAL VOTING TO RETAIN existing "0-0" starting count: 2,825 (54.9%) • TOTAL VOTING TO IMPLEMENT a new "1-1" starting count: 2,318 (45.1%) • MEN VOTING TO RETAIN existing "0-0" starting count: 2,528 (53.8%) • MEN VOTING TO IMPLEMENT a new "1-1" starting count: 2,174 (46.2%) • WOMEN VOTING TO RETAIN existing "0-0" starting count: 297 (67.3%) • WOMEN VOTING TO IMPLEMENT a new "1-1" starting count: 144 (32.7%) NOTES: • Retention of the existing "0-0" starting count was favored by 10 of the 14 gender/age groups. The minority in favor of the "1-1" included only the Men's and Women's 40-Masters and the Men's 50+ and 55+ divisions. All other age groups, in both genders, favored retention of the "0-0" starting count. • Retention of the existing "0-0" starting count was favored by 10 of the 13 geographic regions surveyed, as categorized by the SSUSA Clubs & Leagues Regional areas (plus one other category comprised of foreign and snowbird players.) The minority in favor of the "1-1" included only the Central, Great Lakes and North regions. All other regions favored retention of the "0-0" starting count. For a complete breakdown of the voting, by age, by gender and by geographic region, please click on the following link: ONE & ONE SURVEY DATA __________ 2017 NOTE: The SSUSA Rules Committee will be re-visiting the issue later this week during the 2017 Annual SSUSA Rules Committee sessions at the National Convention ... |
| Nov. 26, 2017 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | NYGNYY, It looks like I may be the same age as you and played with the 1 and 1 count since 1982 (until senior ball) so I guess I am one who DID grow up with it. For the umpteenth time, we are not looking to get the game over with quicker, rather to get more game action in the allotted time we have. Basically, as the staff is presuming, the groups that played mostly USSSA back in the day favor 1-1 and the groups that played mostly ASA favor 0-0. |
| Nov. 26, 2017 Jon44 Men's 55 149 posts | Seen spirited arguments for it and against the 1-1 count in this thread, but for me it comes down for the increased probability that the game will go the full 7 innings, which also increases my chance for 1 additional at bat per game. I am all in favor of potentially 1 more at bat per game. I like that the 1-1 count was experimented with in the 40's AAA division at worlds this year-- maybe we could consider 50's and 55's also experiment with it this year since they seem to be the age groups most wanting to adopt this. Is that a possibility? |
| Nov. 26, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | Jon44 ... the "1-1/NO waste foul" was a year-long trial in ALL 40-Masters divisions, not just 40-AAA at Las Vegas. That just happened to be the group I had as a Field Director. It had similar favorable results across all ratings and both Men and Women ... It is on the Agenda this week ... |
| Nov. 26, 2017 Jon44 Men's 55 149 posts | Fingers-crossed it passes... thanks for the clarification. |
| Nov. 27, 2017 HAT MAN Men's 50 229 posts | I vote 1 an 1 count. Played all year and never played less then 7 innings even in high scoring games(weren't many on our part lol) We need to Focus on more important issues like For the Love of @#$ Why cant we do better then a $2.00 cap for second place at big tourneys? I know I know we dont play for prizes but frankly its an insult to play your butts off and get a hat that no one will wear. Winter Worlds a team battled back and played 11 games to get 2nd and a cheap hat. With all the sponsors at the big events at least have them donate something. Even a pacific headwear or Richardson cap that is nice looking. Something Please. Vinny |
| Nov. 27, 2017 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | Forget the 2nd place hat altogether! If you're not first, you're last ... Ricky Bobby. |
| Nov. 27, 2017 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | Rainmans, my solution is one pitch! Games would last about 30 minutes and you get 7 innings. I would suggest to SSUSA to hold regional and national one pitch tournaments😨 🎆🎆🎆 |
| Dec. 1, 2017 HAT MAN Men's 50 229 posts | Thank you SSUSA for keeping the 1 and 1 count for 40s. I do think you missed the mark on not implementing it in the other age groups though. Here is why: in a physical aspect, the older you get, no matter how much you hustle you simply dont move as fast as you used to. The 40s games I've played have always been all 7 innings and glad. Now to reach the goal of the most amount of innings played you need to find ways that adapt to the slower player getting on and off the field as we all age. Lets just say a pitched ball takes 30 seconds from pitcher to catcher and back to pitcher for the next pitch. 30 sec X 3 batters= 1.5 minutes X 2 for a full inning=3 minutes. 3 minutes X 5 innings is 15 minutes. So 15 minutes wasted. and for the skeptics yes some guys swing at first pitch, true but most innings have more then 6 batters maximum so I think we can agree they cancel out. So saving 15 minutes of time during innings 1 through 5 should get more innings total. Well maybe next year? I'm happy I have 4 more years with the 1 and 1 count. Thanks SSUSA Vinny |
| Dec. 1, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | Vinny ... We're still evaluating the potential for expanding the "1-1" count to other age groups for the 2018 Season, but deferred any formal decision until January ... We have commissioned the Staff to prepare a "Member Preference Survey" for further analysis and a targeted date for a Rules Committee Conference Call meeting on January 9th ... More to come on this topic! |
| Dec. 2, 2017 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | Tabled again? Really? Excellent explanation from HAT MAN! |
