Letter

Letters to Editor Autumn Edition

Oct. 1, 2008 – Senior Softball-USA

Tougher Penalties Help Sport

I live in Arizona now and play softball here. I’d like to respond to your article in the Summer 2008 edition on cracking down on players playing on two teams in the same age division.

I’ve been playing Senior Softball USA for 24 years and I’ve seen and heard of so many coaches and ballplayers who cheat, trying to win at all costs, mainly for a RING. I’ve got three and I can truly say that the teams I was on earned it the right way.

I get tired of hearing these things all the time and I am sure that a lot of coaches and players feel the same way. The coaches and teams that try to circumvent the rules make a bad mark on the integrity of the game.

Catching the teams and players who circumvent the rules and infractions, and just returning these rings and fining them doesn’t solve the problem. If they do the crime, they should do the time. Both the coaches and players know the rules and what is expected of them.

In my opinion, the coaches and players involved should be banned for LIFE and I am sure all the coaches and players will get the message right quick and everyone will know you are serious about improving the integrity of Senior Softball.

Senior Softball has done a wonderful job in the past but we need to put more serious meat in the words we speak.

In regards to players competing on two teams in the same division, if I was a coach I would not release a player to go to another team. Those players made a commitment, but they feel that just because the team is not living up to expectations, they feel they have the right to bail out.

A lot of players do not know the word “loyalty.” I do not agree that a player can be released once he makes that commitment to his team. After the World Championships, he can do whatever he wants. If that player does not want to play with the team once he agreed to, then sit the year out.

Dick Everett

Chino Valley, Arizona



Playing by the Real Rules

Most of us have played ball all our lives. We started young and now, as time is slipping away, thankfully, we are still able to get our and enjoy playing this game.

We have lived and played through lots of rule changes in the course of our playing years. Some we liked and some we didn’t , but we followed what the rules said for the game we were playing. Some teams we played on, (or against) were not as good as others but the rules were still the same. Lots of players didn’t know the game rules and had to be taught. Still, through it all, we played because we love the game.

Some have changed the rules to fit the way they wanted to play and there were those who followed them. The followers just didn’t want to stand and say “ I think I’ll play the game by the “real” rules”.

Could we take a look at the most important game of all? It’s called the “Game of Life”.

It also has rules. They are not hard to understand. The best thing is…everyone who plays by the rules of THIS game …wins! For some, the game is over early in life. For others, it’s a long game…that can still be won.

The great thing is that no one MAKES you play by the rules. You, alone, choose to play the way you want, but IF you don’t play by the rules, you don’t win. The rules don’t change just because it’s you. They are the same for everyone.

Most of us now are in the final innings of our game and yet, many have never read the Rule Book for themselves. They have always depended on someone else to tell them about it. Even though most have the Rule Book at home.

If you have never read the Rule Book, get it out and read it well. If you have to change your habits, language, or places you go – then just do it! It will be well worth it when that third out is called in YOUR game.

This game is all about winning because if you lose, you’ve lost it all…for eternity! It’s a long, long time. There will be NO extra innings.

Jack Kitchens

Time Bandits

Dallas, Texas



Three Outs by Catcher

During the Eastern National Tournament held in Raleigh, N.C.,this past week, something happened that belongs in the record book of individual achievements.

During a 65’s game, Ted MacCarrick, the catcher for the Syracuse Cyclones accomplished a feat that none of us players, spectators, umpires, or officials have ever seen or heard!

Ted caught two pop fly balls in foul territory and one pop fly in fair territory! Unbelievable! In one inning!!

Dick Ochampaugh

70’s Syracuse Cyclones, New York

Why Change Format?

I am writing this letter on behalf of our 70+ team, the Colorado Cougars. We feel the SSUSA is a first-ate organization, runs good tournaments, and thus, is always looking to improve their product. This letter is being submitted for the purpose of giving you our feedback and constructive input on the Rock-N-Reno Tournament that was held in May.

We were very disappointed with the format that was used for this tournament, which was not the “normal” format that had been used in previous Rock-N-Reno tourneys, and the one that is used in many, many other tourneys, namely, a three-game round robin with a two-and-out bracket. That “normal” format is tried and tested, assures that teams get to play at least five games, and has been accepted by all teams.

For some reason, your organization chose to use a newer formant of a two-game round robin and a three-game guarantee in the bracket play. We have never played in this type of format, and neither had any of the teams to whom we spoke. This format allowed for some strange things to occur at your tourney, as follows:

After the two-game round robin, our team was seeded #1. There were 11 teams in our division and normally ( and logically) the #1 seed would get to play the #11 seed, and possibly get a bye for the honor of being a #1 seed. The bracket of this newer format showed that both the #11 and #10 seeds were in the bracketing with the #2 and #2??????? seeds, and also the first 5 seeds all got byes. When 5 of 11 teams get byes, there is no advantage in being the #1 seed.

In our first three games, we played the same team twice. With 11 teams in our division, this should not happen, at least not until well into the bracket play. With the considerable expense involved in participating in tourneys, it surely would have been more enjoyable for us to play as many other teams as possible.

And perhaps the most absurd thing that this newer format produced: After game #10, the Sacramento Gold team had two losses in bracket play, but had only played four total games, so they got to play their third guaranteed game in bracket play.

In fact, they had not won any games, having also lost 2 games in the round robin. We played them in game #13 with a 1-1 bracket record and 3-1 overall record. If they would have beat us in this game, we would have gone home with a 3-2 overall record, and they would have still been playing with a 1-4 overall record. We understand a similar situation occurred in the 65+ AAA division. This situation is certainly not fair, is ridiculous and does not encourage the advancement of the better teams.

-- Tony Riccio

Colorado Cougars

Editors Note: The two round robin games followed by a three game guarantee brack t (“2RR/3GG”) format is not new for us. Except for the 65+and older divisions of (only) the World Championships, it has been our standard format of choice in all tournaments since the August,2006, California Cup. It may be “new” to the Colorado Cougars only because you are in the age group session of the Worlds that uses the “older” format, and only in one tournament, the World’s.

There are three principal reasons we have adopted the 2RR/3GG forma:

A strong majority of teams believe that the”real” tournament begins only when the elimination bracket, regardless of its structure, commences. The 2RR/3GG format gets teams into the brackets earlier and keeps them there longer .The 2RR/3GG format requires less total games that the former 3RR/DE structure. With the growth in the number of teams being at a faster rate than the availability of new playing facilities, “every game counts” in scheduling. In Reno this year, we scheduled 526 potential games over six days into 527 total maximum available game slots.

In any division with an odd number of teams playing a three-game seeding, one of those teams must play an “exhibition” game that doesn’t count in the standings, but constitutes that team’s fourth game prior to the bracket. Almost all teams that draw that extra game believe it is unfair. There are no “exhibition”games in the 2RR?3GG format.

As the #1 Seed your team did have the most advantageous seed, but it’s going to take a bit of a bracket-theory explanation to illustrate that. Plase bear with me for a moment!

Elimination brackets are structured on a theory of the “powers of two”. Each bracket actually starts with a “shell” at the next highest power of two, such a 4,8,16,32, etc. In your case, 11 being more that eight and less than 16 teams, the 16-team “shell” is your starting point. You received a “bye” under the theory that you were deemed to have played, and defeated, a non-existent #16 seed, the lowest in your “shell”.The same is true of the #2 through #5 seeds, all deemed to have defeated non-existent #15 through #12 seeds, respectively, to “advance” to the second round.

Bracket theory also presumes that each favored seed actually wins every game( rarely the case, which is why we play the games!) When the three first round games are done in your 11-team bracket, assuming the favored teams win, there will be eight unbeaten teams remaining, the three winners and the five “bye” teams, and you, as the #1 seed would be paired against the lowest of those, the #8. Your position in the bracket gives you that lowest presumed remaining opponent benefit as well as the (shared) benefit of not having to play that extra first round game. Your team truly did have the most theoretically beneficial starting position in the bracket as the #1 in Reno because the #9, #10, and #11 seeds were presumed first round losers, despite the fact that two of those three actually won in upsets this year.

After the second round games, the presumed unbeaten teams are the top four seeds, and you, as the #1 would again be paired against the lowest of those, the #4. The same is true in the winners bracket final, with you at #1 against the #2. This is where your illustrative 11-team bracket fails to be consistent with overall bracket theory of protecting the top seeds, in order, at each round of the winner’s bracket.

We bear the full responsibility for who your team plays in the seeding games, and we make every effort to ensure that you do not play teams that you would likely play regularly outside of our events. However, and respectfully, your team bears the full responsibility for who you play in the bracket, based solely on your own performance in the seeding games as measured against the performance of the other teams during seeding. Modifying the seeding positions after the fact to avoid seeding round rematches defeats the entire concept of seeding teams in the bracket and isn’t something that we will be doing.

2 New Knees

I’ve played fastpitch-slowpitch forever-starting in Maui, Hawaii where I was born and raised in the town of Paia.. At 40 years old, I played in Tustin, Calif. 40+ league with Ken Lepinski-when the fast-pitch days were slowing down.

At 50+ well look at what happened!! Amazing. I got a brand new right knee and my left knee will be replaced soon.

-- Don Ormellas, 74

D-99,California

Adjust Equalizer

The Palm Springs Winter Worlds was run very well.

The new playing rule changes for 2008 are mostly good ones. The five-run equalizer rule should , in my opinion, be altered to read that a run is awarded innings two and up to but not including the open inning.

Shortened games of five or six innings create a more unfair playing field. I have no problem giving a team five runs over seven innings, but not five over five or six innings.

Games held to 55 or 60 minutes make it very difficult to get in a full seven innings.

Thanks for your consideration.

Red Simmons

Top Gun 70

California