Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: Bougie, TABLE SETTER 11; 84 anonymousDiscussion: rules of the game
| Posted | Discussion |
| Oct. 29, 2010 Gary Heifner 248 posts | rules of the game As all can see from past posts, I am a HUGE supoporter of Terry, Fran, Dave and the rest of the staff and what they do. However, my two main, on going, grips once again surfaced in Phoenix. I asked well over 50 plus men, if they prefered the 0-0 or 1-1 starting count and 100% replied 1-1 count. We once again had 5 and 6 inning games. I want to play the full seven. The second is the 6-12 foot arc. Some pitchers have the skill to throw that 11 Foot plus arc and hit the mat. There wasn't an ump in our 7 games that had a clue what a 12 foot arc was. Some games turned into marginal fast pitch. Just make the arc 6-10 feet and maybe the umps could better determine what is 3 plus feet over the average pitchers head, I watched a lot of confused, pissed off batters, not only in our games, but others we scouted, who objected often due to the inconsistancy of the higher arc. The higher arc became a problem to batters due the hesitation of the umps in calling illegal. The 6-10 arc would help batters to dial in over a season as to what to expect and probably save the umps a lot grief. |
| Oct. 29, 2010 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | Both good points. The 6-10 foot arc is preferred by our team, but I can see why some may not like it. I can't understand why anyone would not want a 1 and 1 count for the reason stated by Gary. We would play more innings. We are already paying over $100 a game and standing around for a good portion of it! We want to play 7 inning games! Also, Please don't ever move the World's out of the Phoenix area! It is so nice to come there at the end of October and get out of the rain for a few days! |
| Oct. 29, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Count for 1-1 as opposed to 0-0 has been shown to only speed up game 3-4 minutes. I have also read 4-6 minutes. Granted that could be time enough to start another inning but with the game already geared to being a hitters game why not make it so a pitcher can pitch however height wise and or with the moves or a skill he may have to 'distract' the batter. IE between legs, behind back, etc. After all, as it is, with the 6-10 arcs, they are really meat balls begging for a HR. After all this (pitching) is also a skill. If he missed the mat, so be it. In Baseball they have 5-6 different pitches they use. Softball should have a variety of heights, etc, as well. Kinda even up the offense with adjusted pitching defense. You should be able to adjust to different heights and or actions if your that good. Almost like the bats and balls used. |
| Oct. 29, 2010 Enviro-Vac Men's 65 489 posts | Nice post Jawood on all points especialy Phoenix |
| Oct. 29, 2010 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | I agree with having the 1-1 count AND unlimited height on the pitching. With the lively balls and high tech bats, this would make for a better game. I played unlimited arc for 20 plus years, and you just need to adjust and get used to the change, if you are a good hitter. It also completely takes the judgement call out of the unpire's hand. It is too difficult for the umpires to judge height limits, and some are way off. No height limit would eliminate this completely, and the minimum would still be over the batter's head. Just my opinions, Andy Smith, Double Edge, 60 Major |
| Oct. 30, 2010 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | I, also, believe you guys are correct-unlimited arc would take that judgement call out of the game and I do support it-and height of pitch IS a difficult call. I played unlimited arc for a number of years before they set limits. I thought of inventing a laser light that you could set at 12 feet and if the ball breaks the plane of it, it is too high. Make it adjustable and you could set at 10 feet where needed. taits-even that 3-6 minutes increases playing time by up to 10%. What an easy way to speed the game up some. And kudos to all the people at SSUSA for putting on a class tournament. Phoenix is the perfect setting in late October, and the hard work they put in is appreciated. Andy-congrats on your victory in Phoenix. |
| Oct. 30, 2010 Player25 Men's 55 50 posts | Have also played unlimited arc. I would only suggest that with unlimited arc, the mat be eliminated. Using the mat with unlimited arc would allow the ball to be thrown such that it would be unhittable. For instance, a 20 ft high pitch hitting the back of the mat. IMO it would bring more judgement by the ump into the game. The higher the arc the closer to the plate the ball would need to hit for it to pass through the strike zone. I also believe there would be more balls going through the middle as batters tommyhawk the high pitch. It appears batters that tommyhawk high pitches do not have as much control. Just my opinion. |
| Oct. 30, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | I doubt many pitchers could even hit just a plate at 6-10 or 12 consistently. Why do you think they wanted a bigger one? Leave the matt. Like i and a few others said good players will adjust. As for the t-hawking. I do it on occasion but it usually only goes to LF. |
| Oct. 30, 2010 pushin60 Men's 60 61 posts | I agree 100% with Player25 except that, unless the ball lands directly behind the plate, almost all of the pitches would not cross the plate through the strike zone, especially with shorter batters. You would certainly have to eliminate the mat, and you should also eliminate the box. Having said that, I also want it said that unlimited arc is extremely BORING! I’d be willing to bet that 75% of the people who champion unlimited arc are pitchers who want to be a bigger part of the game than they should be. This is slow pitch softball, and it has gained it’s acceptance through its high-scoring fast pace. You want to slow it down with 4-5 pitch at-bats and more walks. I hope some of the fielders who would have to watch all this “mound artistry” at their positions, while they stew over 5 inning games with 2-3 at-bats, chime in and tell you what they really think. We have a good game, with fair rules, so please leave it the heck alone! |
| Oct. 30, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Not sure on your 75% thing but I do know many on here are pitchers. You know I am one, but also play 1st & 3rd. Could do 2nd but don't choose to. I played the U-limit game for 17 yrs as well as 35+ with the 6-12. Took about 3 games to get used to U-L at first, but no problem if you try it for awhile. SSUSA isn't modified or use the strike zone. If your short it shouldn't matter either. The ball still comes down, hit it. I don't think pitchers want a bigger part, that's why there are 9 others on the field with them. They, as most all players do, do want fairness in the rules & rules that don't force them to wear gear unless they choose to and fairness with the other equip we use. That included bats and balls. As for the short games, they suck, I definitely agree on that. Take care Ken. |
| Oct. 30, 2010 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | As a pitcher over the decades, I have lived with different height limits on arcs. In my experience, the ump who has difficulty discerning whether a close-to-12-foot pitch is illegal or not has an equally hard time discerning the legality of a close-to-10-foot pitch. It's a judgement call and umpires are not perfect. One area that is seldom addressed is the consistency or accuracy of an umpire in judging whether a ball passes through the strike zone. I'm a big believer in the mat since it has taken this unpredictability out of the game. But it brings up the unlimited arc challenge. When I pitched in leagues that allowed unlimited arc, there was no call more argued about than when an ump would call a ball a strike (protested by the batter) or a ball (protested by the pitcher and catcher). The mat would have solved that but it was back in the days before the mat. As to hitting the unlimited arc, I found that good fungo hitters could still hit it (I was consistently throwing strikes at 20 feet), and poor fungo hitters were a mess! I feasted on poor fungo hitters once I discovered their lack of hand/eye coordination. As for 0-0 count or 1-1 count, I have pitched about 20 years with each rule. Doesn't make much difference to me as a pitcher (although I prefer the 0-0 count). The surfeit of fewer-inning games seem mostly a result of the 21st century hot bats, in my opinion. There is much more offense, particularly by the bottom of the order, and more long balls to chase and retrieve. Go back to double wall (or single wall) and games will revert to a full seven innings within the time limit. |
| Oct. 30, 2010 Rckound Men's 55 6 posts | Having played in unlimited arc leagues, the pace of the game was anything but boring. The rules were unlimited arc with mat, runner may leave with pitcher releasing ball. If batter does not hit ball, throw back to base would result in pickoff, no tag needed. This kept things fairly even. If a pitcher did want to take a chance and throw something into the sky, the runner could take a chance and take off for the next base. This then puts the batter in the position of if he does not make contact, the runner could potentially be thrown out back at the base. Games were quick, high scoring affairs with a lot of action. |
| Oct. 30, 2010 Rckound Men's 55 6 posts | Clarify a little bit, not making contact would mean not only swinging and missing, granted doesn't happen often, but also standing there and just not swinging because batter felt pitch was too high. |
| Oct. 30, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | well a lot of good posts here,but the nonames need to delete theirs as they have no credibilty...DOH,LOL GOT CHA'S..... no all are very good thanks..i prefer the 1-1 count all the way around,as pitcher and batter.the time save is not really that much,so that is not my reason for liking it.also get rid of the extra foul for some who use that,my leagues don't and as i pitch in them(well the for kids,senior i get to play the field). ok for the pitch limit,mat ball there shouldn't be any,make the batters box longer if needed.the mat shows you were the ball has to land no matter what to be a strike,not real hard to figure out,i'm just saying....lastly if we need to get back to defense get rid of some of this technology,easiest way is to go to the 52-275 ball at this time..... good discussion here guys,lets keep it going. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Couple of thoughts. One, the 1-1 count just covers for bad pitching. Good pitching will keep the game moving, and avoid 6 pitch at-bats, and force batters to swing the bat early in the count. All the things guys on here are alleging the 1-1 count does. Two, the mat gives all guys the same size strike zone, no matter if they are 5'6" or 6'8". NOT the way the game was meant to be played. Not at all. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 DD Men's 75 92 posts | This thread raised two major points...the first (and far more significant one) is TIME LIMITS ARE CAUSING TOO MANY SHORTENED GAMES. As for height limits and/or incorrectly called pitches, one need only see a recent Major League playoff game to understand the INHERENT problems in umpires calling balls and strikes. Even the best professional umpires are missing almost half the close calls...as measured by the TRAC-ZONE TV screen feature. We learn to live with this part of the game...always have been good and bad umps...always will be. Deal with it...it's part of the game. But time limits are ruining the experience by shortening too many games and having DIRECT IMPACT on game results. Time limits are NOT part of the game. They are an artificial construct based in economics and used to deprive paying customers of value. Time limits need to go away, except in rare cases. Shoretening a game hurts those teams who have the steel to come back from late-inning deficits and are skewing results by eliminating the final frame. We tracked game results in five SSWC tournaments this year and found 52% of our games were called after 6 innings or less. FIFTY-TWO PERCENT. This is an epidemic problem and will send us to other organizations in 2011 (like SPA) who find a way to make time-shortened games a rare exception, instead of the rule. Teams want seven innings, DON'T WE? SPEAK UP...UNLESS THEY HEAR FROM YOU LOUD AND CLEAR...YOU WILL CONTINUE TO GET LESS AND LESS FOR YOUR MONEY. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | DD, Trust me the assn(s) having limits like here, WILL raise fees if played like the good old days without them. Why, because the Umps will want more $$. So they will charge u more to cover that and a little extra to make a little more. Far too many games are shortened by the limits imposed, and there are many teams that do turn around at the end and come back to win. So I'd guess there is no real way to say all or even most, shortened games ended as they would have anyway. I do not like the limits, or at least as they are. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | i do agree the 1-1 count might not make the game go faster by much,but it does make a batter go up there swinging,especially if there is no courtesy foul.with the full count, batters will let go close pitches at the beginning of the count to try and get better ones later,i know i do.to me the 1-1 count has the batter ready to go from the first pitch.i know a lot of batters that go up there and won't swing at anything until the first strike is thrown when there is a full count given.i think we should make it harder on the batter since the damn ball is thrown underhand at less than 20 mph,lets make the count 4 balls 2 strikes..... |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | mad dog, a good pitcher will accomplish the same without changing fundamental rules. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 jolly52 Men's 60 53 posts | I have also played unlimited arc and if you couple that with a 1-1 count it has the potential of making the games alot longer with walks unless you have one of the few and I do mean few pitchers who can throw consitent strikes at that hiegth! Yes we did have high scoring games but it seemed to me it took out the real softball experiance with hitting and pitching as it is now... 1-1 count just another way of hurring up a game and taking the enjoyment out of it... |
| Nov. 1, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | the 1-1(or 3-2 by reality)has been around since the 80's(usssa).i can't see unlimited going to the 3-2 count,but hey that is another game in itself,only true ballers will/can play it.. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Don't kid yourself, Utrip was running a LOT of tournaments back then and wanted to keep those games moving too. That was a way for them to try and do that. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | not sure what your talking about,i know we got 70 minutes playing time and we used the 3-2 count back then.did utrip have unlimited tourney's back then,i know we didn't have them where i was at(cali,than Washington state)from the mid 80's-mid 90's.95 i left the states to play in Italy(worked for the military) for the next 5 years.by the time i got back all the damn rules had been changed,and oh we had E ball by than... |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | DD raises one of the big points, that there are too many shortened games. He points to the teams who miss the opportunity to come back. There is another drawback to a shortened game. One of the most popular ways to compensate for a mismatch within a bracket in NCSSA (which groups teams by ability, not age) is to give the weaker teams runs, usually 1 run per inning for innings 2 through 6. As you can quickly see, if a game does not go seven innings, the stronger team is penalized since they still give 5 runs but do not have 7 innings to try to make up the scoring difference. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | I am against GIVING runs as an equalizer. Provide lower rated teams the opportunity to EARN their equalizer runs (one more run per inning), they will feel better about their victory if they earn them and not have it given to them. Why, under the current system, are the equalizer runs started in the second inning? If teams get these "gift runs", just give them at the beginning of the game. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Marv19 Men's 60 498 posts | At an SCSSA tournament the equalizer is applied starting in the first inning. We do a 1 up and a single for home runs in all divisions. We are user friendly :O) |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Al33 Men's 55 183 posts | DD: You are 100% correct. Shortended games are becoming the rule of thumb. We ARE getting less and less for our money. Money and greed is the main reason for this. Organizations are more concerned about making money than giving the players what they have paid for. Your comment about SPA was right on target. They do it right, why can't they all do it. Goodness guys, How much easier can it get to umpire. All you have to do is call it flat or too high. If it hits the mat it's a srike. If an umpire can't do that, let's face it, they shouldn't be umping in the first place. That's another reason we aren't getting what we're paying for. Get umpires who are qualified. No reason not to have good umpires, NONE. One hour time limits is a joke all together, although in preliminaries it might be OK. Once you get to the tournament, games should be a "minimum" of 75 minutes plus one more inning. DUKE: Please stop with promoting unlimited arc. I played unlimited arc 30 years ago. There's no room for it in this day and age. Unlimited arc is for beer tournaments not championship softball. I sure as heck don't want to play unlimited arc because an umpire might miss an ocassional flat or to high of a pitch. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Dbax Men's 65 2101 posts | One could argue that shortened games are due to both teams scoring a lot of runs and not the 0-0 count. Out west, SPA almost does not exist. We won't be flocking to SPA out here. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | I love the 1-1 count. It's great for the game, the tempo, the energy, the rhythm and the interest. What about 3 run limit innings in order to get 7 innings in. All walk off HR's and base runners. I would love to see the 5 second pitcher's rule enforced more especially as I like to work fast but a fair amount of pitchers slow down the game on purpose to gain an edge. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | Heard the possibility of SPA coming out west next year. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | I'm for a 0-0 count. As said above, only a few minutes would be saved by starting with a 1-1. In our league we have a 4-10 arc and the pitchers don't have a problem hitting the mat. We've found that with a 6-12 arc the upper pitcher become 18 or 20 feet. To get more playing time we need longer time limits. I also heard SPA will be in the West in 2011. We really enjoyed their tournaments in the Southeast. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 B-DUB Men's 65 30 posts | I agree with the concept of a 12 ft. arc ball must land very close to the plate for it to go through the strike zone. With the ball hitting the back of the mat and shorter players you will have to tommy hawk that pitch. Not the intent of the game.If your going to use higher ach pitches make the mat two colored front to back which allows the ump to call a ball when the high arc pitch hits the back color. Keep it 6 to 10, 1-1 and enjoy why we started to play slow pitch softball. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Does anyone really think guys 5'6" and 6'8" are supposed to have the same size strike zone? |
| Nov. 2, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Seems to be at least one. Still the hollow of knees to shoulder top, if the ump gets it right. Just adjusted for batters height, or shortness. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | I've heard since I was a kid that the strike zone was an idealized concept in that the zone was created from a normal size person and then superimposed on/over the strike zone of any individual. So, a very short player would have to swing at higher pitches and a very tall player would have to swing at lower ones. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | The top of the strike zone is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants. The bottom of the strike zone is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The right and left boundaries of the strike zone correspond to the edges of home plate. A pitch that touches the outer boundary of the zone is as much a strike as a pitch that is thrown right down the center. A pitch at which the batter does not swing and which does not pass through the strike zone is called a ball. The de facto enforced strike zone can vary. An extreme interpretation that favors batters requires the entire diameter of the ballÑincluding stitched seamsÑ to pass inside the area formed by the strike zone boundaries as defined in the official rules. The opposite extremeÑfavoring pitchersÑrequires a pitch to be called a strike if even the smallest portion of the ball, seams included, has intersected or passed inside any strike zone boundary as defined in the official rules. Enforcement has differed in different years. But the basics are as above. Short or tall the area is the same , just adjusted to batters size or height. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Joe, I disagree. A good ump will take the height of the batter into account each time. Now the mat does not do this, and forces the same strike zone for all batters. A bad thing in my view. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Gary. What if a height challenged guy let's say 3 foot 10 gets in the box. Is it true the strike zone will be limited by the limits of HIS size? I remember being told when I was a kid to throw to the normal height of a hitter and I thought that was the rule. I can see the argument, either way. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | well there ya have it,doesn't know crap about the rules..who would of figured..... |
| Nov. 2, 2010 E4/E6 Men's 70 873 posts | Remember when Charlie O put the Little Person under contract and sent him out to bat for Oakland? The strike zone is the knees to the letters or armpits. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Yes Joe, that is true. It has been done in MLB, he was Eddie Gaedel and Bill Veeck used him back in maybe the 40s or 50s. You throw to the normal height of THAT particular hitter in the box, not to the batter if he is excessively crouching. But each batter's normal stance establishes his own strike zone. And it is different for each batter, NOT the same as the mat forces it to be. Consequently, the mat is a terrible idea for use as a strike zone. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 gary c 418 posts | mad dog are you surprised he never played base ball but he is the spokesman and king of softball. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 Dbax Men's 65 2101 posts | Dirty is right. It was Bill Veeck, not Charlie O. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 southernson 280 posts | Just as an fyi, the average size of the chain link at any ball park is 2 3/8" or rounding off including the twists is estimated at 3" per link. So the next time someone wants to show an umpire how high 12' is, it is 48 links from the ground. Next time you go to the park, count 48 links up, it's been a rare occasion that umpires allow you to actually throw a pitch 12' in height. And I am certainly willing to bet that the guys who whine about high pitches won't get past counting 35 links, because after that, here comes the whine. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Al33, I do not think you have to be concerned about any one promoting the unlimited arc. I only played 3 tournaments where the unlimited arc was allowed. It is very doubtful that it will ever happen, since it takes too much extra time to play that game. I still play unlimited arc in leagues with leadoffs for runners after it leaves the pitcher's hand. Still a very fun and skilled game for the guys that are good hitters. Andy Smith, Double Edge, 60 Major Plus |
| Nov. 3, 2010 Rip 20 posts | Get rid of the mat to many batters take pitches that they would never dare take if the umpire wasnt restricted by the mat. I feel this slows the game down more than anything.Yes you will get some bad strikes called but hell i've seen umps miss calls now with the mat! Number 2 once you have 2 strikes it has to be a fair ball or your out. Number 3 after the third out you have 1 minute to take the field or the ump starts calling balls. A lot of time is wasted every game between each 1/2 inning along with the use of substitute runners,and i'd change that to one runner per inning until you get into the 60's perhaps. Then for the money we pay how about adding 15 minutes a game. |
| Nov. 3, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | southernson,i do that with players all the time,they won't believe me,myself with a bat in hand can only reach just under 10',i tell them to add 2' more to that for our 12',and they look at you in disbelief... rip you do have a couple idea's,but remember in senior ball as we age,we get slower.the 1 minute wouldn't work,example,the OF'er playing in the opposite dugout,(3b do going to RF,etc)someone did some research and came up with an extra 3/4 mile or better for them to do in a game.thats a lot of extra running...CR's well never like them but are a necessary evil,with them they should be ready(10 seconds is time enough) and put in before the first pitch,once first pitch is thrown to bad,also nothing after they have reach 2b. for the mat ,i do like it as it does take some judgment away, but they have enough prols judging height limits.but would like to see it at least 24" wide(thats 7"wider than the plate,3.5 per side,approx the width of a ball)tho. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | We line up our courtesy runners behind first base most innings in an effort to speed up games because we have so many guys that can barely make it to first physically. If we couldn't run for these guys, we probably wouldn't have a team-just a fact of life and getting older. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | i understand webbie,but in your case,your not really delaying the game by having them ready.that is the most annoying thing i see,is the team knows they are gonna use a CR and take forever to get one out there.have them in the coaching box and just swap out when the batter/runner gets there.i also feel if your runner can make 2 bases on their hit than they don't need a runner to go home with.i hate the ol,we need to score lets put a faster runner out there now as joe can't run that fast,even tho he is physically able to still run,even tho he is just slow...if the guy can run he needs to run,to keep our game moving.i see so much"well lets get a runner now that he has reached 2b",i say if you don't get one before the first pitch to the next batter to bad he doesn't get one. this is my .02 on this... |
| Nov. 4, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Webbie, how does your team even begin to play defense with "so many guys that can barely make it to first physically"? At some point if guys cannot perform the simple parts of the game anymore it might be time to take up checkers instead of continuing to bastardize the game from the way it was meant to be played. When I was a kid this was a game played by 10 year old girls. It was never intended to be that hard or physially taxing. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | I agree MD, if you want a coutesy runner, it must be done before the first pitch to the next batter. Once that has past, no courtesy runner for that guy, even after the next batter(s). See you in Jax. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 E4/E6 Men's 70 873 posts | We seen 349 teams in Phoenix this year, everyone wants more time to play each game, but the way TD's pack in teams for every tournament that will never happen. In almost every case more teams result in shorter games and or late starts. You want longer games? Limit the number of teams allowed in each tournament, however, we know thats not going to happen. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | E4, you want another way? Reduce the number of classifications from 4 to 2, Major and A like it used to be, though the actual names are not important. Or, at least at the younger levels, make the age classes larger. Perhaps 50+, 58+, 60+, and then increase by 5-year increments after that. Or do both. Would make tournaments much more meaningful, would allow for normal length games, you could probably take away time limits and run limits, and play the game the way it was meant to be played. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 stick8 1992 posts | Exactly right Dirty. Playing 50 major plus it seems as if tourneys we want to play have no other major plus teams, 2 or 3 teams we always see and we have to let teams either have 5 extra runs or let them have 11 fielders. Ridiculous! Combine major and major plus. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Combine AA and AAA too. Not that much of a difference. Sure there is some, but not all that great in most cases. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 E4/E6 Men's 70 873 posts | Dirty you will still have the same numbers involved, only pressed into 2 or 3 divisions which in my opinion is ok. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | Schedule the 50's and 60's on one weekend and the 55's and 65's on the next weekend. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | Good points by Stick and Dirty. No need for a Major-plus division. In the 50's the top 10-15 Major teams are just as good as all the Major-plus teams, except the Mavericks. Make them adjust (which they can do) not have a chosen half a dozen teams "fodder" for them. Let the weaker Major teams drop to AAA. Probably still need a AA division for the lower teams. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Dirty, I was somewhat tongue in cheek, but not totally. I'm not sure sometimes how we compete with the defense we put out there, but we do. As far as getting to second-I have had a hip flexor pull for 4 months, so hitting and first base have been the extent of my playing. But when I hit one off the fence, I can still hobble to second. but, I need a runner at that point. I know, I know-and I am sitting now until it heals finally-no Vegas. We are a family team, most guys together for over 10 years and it's the way it works for us. Ask the teams we play. I do think there is a case for a 50-57 and 58-64 divisions to cut out one age group and increase teams in the brackets. I know we felt prouder of winning a 17 team bracket than we did winning a 3 team bracket. I also wish there was a 70 minute limit. |
| Nov. 5, 2010 Capt Kirk 541 posts | Let's get back to basics, the game is meant to be played seven (7) innings not five. We have been conditioned that a five or 6 inning game is a complete game, not. We lost a tournament game in Phoenix, 22-21, we only played six (6) innings, both teams were denied the oppurnity play a complete seven (7) inning game. All tournament bracketed games should be played seven (7) innings, period. |
| Nov. 5, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Let's also keep in mind the game is meant to be played with NO run limits, NO courtesy runners, and vertical (NOT horizontal) strike zones. |
| Nov. 5, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | webbie i have been playing time limit games since the 80's(this was ASA-60 minutes, USSSA-70 minutes).where have you all been playing,other than leagues that set their own mods to rules,that allow for unlimited time to play.yes there are a lot of leagues that do,but not for tourney play,that i have seen. |
| Nov. 5, 2010 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Sorry, I got off track a bit. Five inning games are not as fun-you feel shorted. Especially in major tourneys it should be complete games. But with these bats, games get longer and longer, even with the inning run limits. I have seen 15 to 20 run innings in the open inning, and that takes time. We had a league game last year that we barely (less than a minute) finished the 5th inning. We proceeded to score 24 runs in the 6th and gave up 9 to them. The inning lasted almost an hour and the other games were way behind. This kind of scoring happens enough in a tournament to throw things way behind by the end of the day. Then everyone complains it is not on time. Dirty, of all the changes you mention, I think the courtesy runners is the one we need. Age is going to get you and this has allowed a lot of guys to play that otherwise couldn't. We are always looking for more teams to fill those 3,4, 5 team tourneys. It extends the career for quite a few guys. Mad dog, I have been playing those time limit games, too. In Texas we played a 55 minute limit during the T4000 days-sometimes we got only 3 innings in. But if you play longer games, you have to pay the umpires more and entry fees go up accordingly. Pick your poison--there is a price to pay for 7 inning games. |
| Nov. 5, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | i'm just saying, i'm used to playing with time limits.yeah it does grate ones nerves to only play a shorten game,but td's do have to try and stay on schedule.also remembered when the undefeated team automatically got home team for first champ game,and you flipped for if game.we are damned if we do and damned if we don't............ |
| Nov. 6, 2010 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | If they went to a 1 and 1 count and added just 5 more minutes to the time limit, most of this issue would be solved. |
| Nov. 6, 2010 Captain Marauder Men's 65 91 posts | I agree Jawood, what about adding 5 min to the game and for the first 3 innings allow 3 runs per inning then 5 per inning with the 7th inning open We play 1 and 1 count in league ball it does not speed up the game much |
| Nov. 8, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | 1-1 count doesn't really speed the game up that much,but using the count will helped the pitcher,also no extra foul.its underhand slow-pitch,if ya can't hit it with 2 strikes to ya,you don't need to be playing tourney ball. |
| Nov. 9, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Right on, Jawood. 1-1 sets a faster, more aggressive rhythm for the game which is dynamic in effect. 1-1 count is a great idea. |
| Nov. 9, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Joe, good pitching does the exact same thing without further changing/altering/bastardizing/ruining the game. |
| Nov. 9, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | There are some pitchers, Gary, more than a few who use "slower" as a main gear to work batters. I think we need to tell TD's to let umps know about the 5 second rule and enforce it. |
| Nov. 10, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Then let them 'work' the batters. At the end of the day, it is a big ball being delivered underhand. Whatever a pitcher can get away with, more power to him. |
| Nov. 10, 2010 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | I think we are just trying to find ways to get more innings in the time limits we are forced to play, and the 1 and 1 count will help some. If they they gave us 10-15 more minutes to play then we could stay with a 0-0 count. Just want to play more innings for the ammount of money we have to pay! |
| Nov. 11, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Jawood, I understand. But a good pitcher will take the bat out of the batters hands, well as much as you can do that in slow-pitch, and speed the game up as well. The problem is not the count, it is the silly time limit rules. |
| Nov. 12, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Einstein , If you are referring to a quick pitch thing (rule 6.11), there is no time mentioned. There is one 6.6 I for the next pitch, that is 10 seconds to release the next pitch. With that in mind I'd think he could well do it faster than the 5 you mention... Go figure. |
| Nov. 12, 2010 canIjack Men's 60 322 posts | UN-Limited HEIGHT PITCH, 1-1 COUNT, USE LARGER MATS, AND EXTEND BATTERS BOXS. THIS WILL WORK. FORGET GIVING ANYONE AN EXTRA RUN PER INNING. THATS FOR GIRLS. |
| Nov. 12, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | I like where you going with this Ken and really like the larger mats which SSUSA has already done. Scott. I heard an umpire say that a pitcher has 5 seconds from the time step on/in the rubber. Is that a rule does anyone know? |
| Nov. 13, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Einstein, That rule mentioned was from the time the ump says "play ball", so it could easily be at any time during the game. Read it, it is the only one in the book for pitching. |
