dore83

If you would like, drop me an email at dore83 or you can call 615-473-5314. I can give you some options and/or names.

A force and failing to retouch are two completely different things. Failing to retouch is not a force. If a runner is called out for the 3rd out on appeal for not retouching (tagging up), any preceding runs score unless the appeal is made before they cross the plate. See ASA Rule 1 - Definitions (Force Out), and ASA POE #1 Appeals - J & K. FORCE OUT A force out is an out which may be made only when a runner loses the right to the base that the runner is occupying because the batter becomes a batter-runner, and before the batter-runner or a succeeding runner has been put out. The runner did not lose her right to the base because the ball was caught, the batter-runner was out, and the initial runner on first did not have to vacate the base - therefore there is no force play. Instead, it was a failure to retouch. Throwing the ball to 1B is a live ball appeal of a "base left too early." Runs scored BEFORE the appeal count even if it was the 3rd out of an inning because it is considered a "timing play." BTW, this situation is one that has been on the "40 softball rule myths" list put out by umpires for years now. The run scores.

It isn't a force out. It would be a force out at 2B if it was a ground ball. cascade11 is correct. It is a timing play.

I can't really understand what you were writing... but I don't think there is much of a chance TSSAA will even consider it, much less approve it so you are probably correct there. However, there are tons of compelling arguments to justify the move. As one poster in a previous thread noted, TSSAA won't change softball to the fall because it makes too much sense.

Siegel 1 Maryville 0 Blackman 6 Karns 1 Cookeville 6 Morristown West 3 Farragut 5 Lebanon 0 Harpeth 10 Rhea Co 4 Soddy Daisy 2 St Benedict 0 LaVergne 1 Grainger Co 1 Halls 5 LaVergne 3 Blackman playing Morristown West now. Late Update Siegel 2 Father Ryan 0

I'm impressed. I guess posts like this one are the silver lining on public boards... every now and then someone will actually go out and do some research and everybody benefits. Too bad it doesn't happen more often! From the way you wrote this, I don't know if you picked it up or not, but just to make sure (you seem to have)... "an initial play on the ball" is missing one word which makes a big difference. The actual rule reads "initial play on a batted ball." Responsibility for contact on the initial (first) play on a batted ball lies with the runner, and interference comes into play. Once that initial play has taken place, whether the ball was fielded or muffed, the responsibility shifts to the defense, which involves obstruction. A throw to a fielder is not the initial play. Anyway, your post made my day. I realize that I am a bit odd and obsessive, but as someone who re-reads the rule book every time we play a different alphabet weekend tournament (ASA, NSA, USSSA, NFHS, etc.), it is refreshing to see others taking the time and effort to research rules and umpire POEs.

Dude. Whatever

At the risk of repeating myself to the point of irritating others... No fielder has the right to block a runner's path to a base UNLESS they are in possession of the ball BEFORE they block the path to that base - regardless if a play is coming or not. If they do, it is obstruction and the runner is protected and cannot be called out. At no time is a runner EVER required to slide. There are a few rec leagues who have their own special slide rules, but no rule book has a slide rule. Runners can be called out or even ejected for running over a defensive player, but they are allowed to run around, slide under, and in a few rule books, jump over a defensive player, but never are they required to slide and never are they out if they do not slide. Hopefully the coach knew the rules enough to know that raising cain would only have shown he didn't know the rules very well and would have subjected him to ejection. Obstruction, like balls/strikes and out/safe, is a judgment call. Judgment calls cannot be protested and arguing judgment calls, by specific rule, is rewarded with ejection.

As a coach, I expect my runners to slide on a close plays. Even if ruled safe by obstruction I normally tell them that I expect them to be down the next time. At the same time, however, not sliding on this play would have been a valid option if, as the original poster indicated, it was a force play. Sliding slows the runner down and running through the plate would have gotten her to the plate faster. In this picture it really looks like the back side of the plate was open until the last second and running through the plate was not a bad choice at the time. As an umpire, however, a runner's decision to slide or not to slide is, by rule, basically irrelevant as long as I wasn't making a call involving interference by the runner (and this wasn't one of those). The decision to slide or not to slide isn't allowed to be a part of my reasoning when determining obstruction.

"Looks like the ball beat the runner" appears to be a correct statement based upon this picture... BUT, the ball beating the runner is only one element involved in determining whether or not obstruction occurs. This play, in spite of the photo, is a HTBT (had to be there). Without being there, I am just making some assumptions based upon what I see in the photo, which may or may not be what actually happened. What it looks like to me is: 1) the catcher in the photo has just made the catch when this photo was snapped. It is possible that she was already holding the ball and just missed to the runner's left when trying to make the tag (which is why it is a HTBT), but it looks like she is reaching around the runner to make the catch and it has just entered her glove at this specific point, supported by where her non-glove hand is (as opposed to being wrapped around the ball inside the glove). 2) If the ball has just entered the glove at the moment of this photo, three other things have already happened in this photo A - Contact has already been made - the two are touching, and B - The runner has already altered her path to the plate. She is no longer running straight (movement to the outside to avoid, feet not in a straight run) and her body and hands are in a "defensive,' protective position bracing for the contact. C - The path to the plate has completely been blocked. The only path to the plate for the runner is around the catcher. Just because the ball technically touched the glove a split second before contact was made, it doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not obstruction is valid. If there was contact or the runner was forced to alter her path to the plate before the ball was in the catcher's possession because the catcher was blocking access to the plate, it is still obstruction even if the ball gets there first. Again, this is a HTBT, but this photo actually supports an obstruction call. Without knowing what happened in the moments just before this photo, I couldn't make that statement definitively, but from what I observe in this photo, obstruction was a good call. BTW... congratulations to whoever it was who took this picture! Incredible photography work.

Unfortunately, there are two errors in this post. The catcher does not have the right to the spot if the "play is close." Several years ago that was true as the rule read that the fielder had to "have possession of the ball" or was "about to receive the ball." Too many train wrecks and too much discrepancy from umpire to umpire as to what "about to receive" actually meant so the rule was changed to remove the "about to receive" clause. The only way a defensive player can legally block a base without obstruction is if she has the ball and is controlling it - bobbling it is not considered possession. And, the runner CANNOT "simply plow through the catcher." A runner is required to avoid contact with a defensive player if at all possible. If a runner plows through a fielder, even if the fielder is obstructing her path, she is automatically out, even if the defensive player drops the ball. If, in the umpire's judgment, the contact was flagrant, she is ejected. If it is a bang, bang where the fielder steps in front of the runner at the last second so that, again in the umpire's judgment, the runner does not have the ability to adjust and avoid contact, it can be ruled as incidental or unavoidable contact on the part of the runner and ignored. The chances are, however, that obstruction on the defensive player would be called in that situation.

How do threads get so screwed up on here? Short and sweet: 19-0 IS winning big. 19-0 probably WASN'T a "big" win. Coffee County has a strong team. Nothing wrong with being excited about dominating on the field. That's what competition is supposed to be about. Some might be taking it a little far, but we haven't scored 19 runs in any two games combined so far this year, much less in 2 innings. If they aren't all that against the big girls, it will come back around. If they are, then we'll be hearing a lot more from them this year. In competitive sports, the best are supposed to get the playing time. Playing a senior over a more talented younger player just because the senior has "hung around" long enough to be older is ridiculous. "Dues" are paid by performing on the practice and game fields. The "life lessons" taught by any other approach are the ones which are truly questionable.

Actually, the ball may be released the first time the pitching hand passes the hip (moving forward), but it may also be released the second time it passes the hip. The majority of the pitchers release the ball the second time past the hip. Many pitchers break their hands, swing the ball down and backward before moving their circle forward. It passes the hip at that point the first time (both backward and forward, but only forward counts). They may release the ball at that point. Traditionally, that has been referred to as the slingshot delivery. They don't have to release the ball the first time, however, and continue with a full windmill. If they do so, they have to release the ball the second time past their hip. Technically it can pass 3 times, but only twice forward/clockwise. NFHS changed the wording of the rule this year to eliminate any confusion. 6-1-4d - Change the pitching windup requirement to a maximum of one and a half clockwise revolutions. ART. 4... The pitcher may use any windup desired provided: d. the pitcher does not make more than one and a half clockwise revolutions of the arm in the windmill pitch. The ball does not have to be released the first time past the hip. Rationale: More and more pitchers are pushing the rule to the limit in an attempt to gain an advantage by deceiving the batter. The change will make an illegal pitch easier to identify and enforcement more consistent. The "double windmill" is illegal. The second pitch you described sounds like what we used to call the "California change-up" or "Chinese change-up." NFHS and ASA have clarified their rules about this pitch as well, but call it the "Ephesus pitch." It is legal if the arm stops after release, but illegal if the motion continues as a windmill after release. As a general rule of thumb, umpires will allow the arm to continue after release to the 12:00 position. Anything beyond that is considered continuation of the windmill after release and is illegal. A "double pump" is also illegal - ie. breaking hands, swinging arms down and back, then back to the front, and then down and back again before starting the windmill. Once a pitcher begins to move her motion forward, she cannot reverse directions.

I fully agree with the first statement. Much of the illegal pitching not called is leaping and not crow hopping. The "crow hop" term is confusing to many because a "leap" looks like a "hop" and many times, there isn't any "hopping" involved in a crow hop. While I will also agree that preventing a pitcher from gaining an unfair advantage over the batter is one of the reaaons why illegal pitches were put in, I can't concur with the rest. Every rule book clearly describes both legal and illegal pitches. There isn't a single rule book which states or even remotely implies that a pitch is illegal only if an advantage has been gained, nor do any imply that the illegal pitch shouldn't be called if there isn't some perceived advantage. There isn't a single rule book which makes an illegal pitch suddenly legal for any reason, and certainly not based upon advantage. A pitch is either illegal by rule, or legal by rule. Advantage, actual or not is not a determining factor. Advantage or any judgment of advantage is irrelevant according to the rules. As for coaches complaining about illegal pitches... the reality is that the only people complaining about people complaining about illegal pitching are those who have a pitcher who is pitching illegally. Most coaches who mention illegal pitching to the umpire don't do so immediately. Sometimes they are paying attention to things other than the opposing pitcher's activities and don't notice it for a while. Sometimes the pitcher throwing illegally, ie. leaping, only leaps on certain pitches and doesn't do it every pitch. Sometimes a coach hopes the umpires will pay attention to their job enough to catch it without the coach being the one who has to bring it to their attention. It doesn't matter when a coach approaches an umpire about an illegal pitcher. The coaches and fans from the pitcher's team will complain about it. And just try asking for an illegal pitch with a 5-0 lead. You'll get blistered by the opposing fans for being a poor winner/sport. Sometimes coaches simply hope that their batters will adjust to the clear advantage gained from pitching illegally which isn't being called and they can still win in spite of being disadvantaged by illegal pitching, but that doesn't happen and frustration is unavoidable simply because the outcome of the game is clearly being determined by events which violate both the letter and spirit of the rules. Sometimes it might be an excuse. More often than not, it is a reason. Either way, it doesn't matter. Illegal is illegal. If the rule book said that leaping is illegal unless it does not gain an advantage according to the umpire's judgment, that would be a completely different matter. It doesn't. It clearly says leaping is illegal - every time it happens - there is a specific penalty for it, and it is the umpire's job to watch for it. The bottom line is that until umpires begin to call illegal pitches when they occur, more and more pitchers will continue to throw illegally simply because they know that they will indeed gain an advantage and never get penalized. I am obsessive about my players and pitching students throwing legally all the time. Quite often they will ask me why they can't leap, hop, or whatever because they can throw faster pitching illegally and are closer to the plate when they leap and crow hop. They feel disadvantaged as they see the cliche "cheaters never propser" being disproved and they are held back because they elect to abide by the rules and remain legal. Good pitchers who throw legally are frustrated and irritated by pitchers who come close to them or match them or even better them only because they are getting away with illegal techniques. I fully understand their indignation. Tell you what... I'll start sending my batters to the plate with a banned bat that is illegal because it has an exit speed of 115 mph instead of the legal 98. When you are hitting routine bloop line drives to SS with your legal bats and my batters are hitting slightly sharper or longer line drives which get over the shortstop's head for hits... and my batters all have batting averages that are 100 points higher than they should be with a normal, legal bat... and we are getting 2-3 more hits a game and winning more games... and my kids are winning all the all-tourney, all-district, all-etc. teams and getting college coach attention ahead of your kids... and umpires refuse to stop us from using those bats, especially when they are telling you that a bat is a bat and they aren't seeing any real advantage... then you come back and tell me how horrible coaches are who complain about illegal pitching. Then I can tell you that you only whine about breaking the rules when you are losing. In spite of the fact that advantage has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not a pitch is illegal or legal, the only reason a pitcher would choose to throw with a leap or crow hop is to gain an advantage. If they weren't gaining an advantage, they would simply throw (or learn to throw) legally. And if umpires don't know enough about softball pitching to recognize illegal pitches, or don't have the guts to call illegal pitches, or don't pay enough attention to their job, then there is very little incentive for pitchers gaining an advantage from throwing illegally to begin to throw legally. Why would they? They are faster, better, and more effective leaping and crow hopping. Well, except maybe ethics and the knowledge that if they want to play at the next level, they will eventually have to learn to throw legally... but much of that is displaced because there are a lot of coaches and instructors who either don't know what is legal and illegal or actually encourage them to continue throwing illegally.

NFHS - Rule 6-1-2-a-b Pivot foot must be on or partially on the pitcher's plate. The non-pivot foot in contact with or behind the pitcher's plate. Both feet between or partially between the 24 inch length of the pitcher's plate. Once the hands are brought together and are in motion, the pitcher shall not take more than one step and it must be forward, towards the batter and simultaneous with the delivery. Any step backwards shall begin before the hands come together. USSSA (and USGF if I remember correctly) also allow one foot on the pitcher's plate (and a step back with the non-pivot foot before the hands come together) just like NFHS. TSSAA, as do most (perhaps all) state high school associations, use NFHS rules. ASA - Rule 6-1-C2 Both pitcher's feet must be in contact with the pitcher's plate and within the 24 inch length of the pitcher's plate. NCAA, AFA, NSA, and all the others are identical to ASA - both feet must be in contact with the pitcher's plate. Yes, Devon, as many other high school pitchers in Tennessee, stepped back with her non-pivot foot while she was at Goodpasture. It was perfectly legal... NOT because umpires didn't call it, but because it is LEGAL and ALLOWED by NFHS rules. She kept/keeps both feet on the pitcher's plate in summer ball and at Belmont because anything else is ILLEGAL and NOT ALLOWED by ASA and NCAA rules. Stupid to have different pitching rules for high school and summer/college ball, but that is the way it is. Also if I remember correctly, NFHS used to require both feet on the pitching plate, but ASA changed it about 25 years ago to one foot and NFHS followed suit. ASA then changed it back to both feet for girls and women, but didn't change it for men's fastpitch (men are still only required to have the pivot foot in contact and can still step back). NFHS decided not to follow ASA that time. From time to time, different proposals are made to the NFHS rules committee to change the one foot requirement to two feet to match the ASA and NCAA rules, but it keeps getting voted down. I know the Minnesota version of TSSAA proposed a change as late as 2007, but they haven't been the only ones.

DNJ is correct. 6-1 Siegel.

There are a lot of college coaches who want to move softball to the fall. They are sick of all the travel costs (bus/flight, hotel, meals, etc.) wasted because of inclement weather cancellations after they travel in the early spring. But, getting something changed in TSSAA is a cakewalk compared to getting something changed in the NCAA, and football rules everything. The only collegiate benefit to playing collegiate softball in the spring is that incoming freshmen get five months to develop with fall ball and off season individuals.

That is very possible and I don't disagree with you about that. I certainly don't want to imply that all top-level players want to bail on high school softball, or that I am speaking for anybody other than myself. I spend a lot of time with my players and the players who workout at my facility and most of them are very, very frustrated with school ball every year. But, there are a lot of good players who enjoy playing school ball for the reasons you mentioned. There seems to be a greater tendency for attachment to smaller schools than there is for larger ones, especially if they are rural schools, and a greater desire to play school ball for those who are on teams with a legitimate shot at the state tournament. I would think that the caliber of coaching would also be a fairly significant factor. If I started a spring travel team this year, I have several players on our summer team who would probably opt for school ball - with my blessing and support. I have one who really enjoys her high school team (AA) and her coaches and wouldn't even consider it. They have also been to state the past two years. I have three others who are on teams which won or came in 3rd at State last year in A and while I haven't had this discussion with them, I'd expect that they would rather take a shot at repeating with their school. On the other hand, I had 3 the last couple of years who didn't play school ball but went on to play college ball and another one this year who isn't playing, and none of them had an alternative. But, I also have another player who enjoys the "big dog" status in every sport at her school who I always assumed would be one who would opt for school ball if she had to make a choice - but she saw this thread last night and sent me an email that said "Please start a spring team this year. I want to play." The desire for an alternative seems to have a direct correlation to the strength of the player's travel team and the caliber of coaching and scheduling on that team. It is often very difficult for players to spend the summer playing with a very strong cast of teammates against some of the best teams in the region and country and then return to school teams without any of those elements. Please don't interpret my comments as anything other than my opinion - or in any way derogatory to players who want to play school ball. I don't see anything wrong with having a desire to wear the hometown name on the front of your jersey and represent your school. My daughter plays school ball and I proudly support her and her team.

I was a little hesitant to answer the last few posts. I've pretty much dominated this thread and I don't want to come across in the wrong way through topic monopolization. And I realize I am far too wordy - and I tend to chase rabbits. A lot of college prospects don't have the opportunity to participate in fall exposures because of a number of reasons: Cost of travel; fewer weekends available and fewer exposure events; many teams don't play fall ball (historically because of the conflict with what used to be high school fall leagues before the 50% rule kicked in); others don't play because their coaches are prohibited by the new TSSAA rule from coaching in the fall; etc. It isn't necessarily an either or situation. I don't know the dates for Fall 2009 High School State Tournaments, but in 2008, NE was Oct 8-10 as was OK small school. MO, CO, and OK large school was Oct 17-18. GA was the next week. That means that except for the girls on teams in the final 4 or 8 of the various fall state tournaments could play most or all of the fall exposures without conflict, and all, even those who went to their State finals, had 1-3 of the 4 legal evaluation weeks available to them. I don't know the % of players who sign college scholarships. Like all sports, those who sign are in the (significant) minority when compared to those don't sign. The percentage - or at least the number of players - for a sport like softball would be higher than other sports like basketball or volleyball because softball is an "equivalency" sport and BB and VB are "head count" sports. Head count sports in the NCAA can only offer full rides. They cannot give partials. In D1 Womens BB gets 15, but not all teams use 15. Others aren't fully funded (i.e. the school only gives the team 10 or 13). VB gets 12 if they are fully funded. Softball gets 12 and as an Equivalency sport, they can divide those 12 into partials that are split among multiple players. There are precious few "full rides" in softball - I realize that if you add up all the softball scholarships that we hear are "full rides" every Division I team would have to have 20 full ride players, but that isn't the case. The average D1 roster is about 20 players. Most or all of them commonly receive some level of athletic scholarship money - perhaps only 10-20%, but they are still signed to an athletic scholarship. College softball coaches are also very creative with getting academic and other non-athletic scholarships and aid for players and work very hard to come up with the extra money. BB and VB coaches don't have to do that because they can't give partials. The rules and numbers of scholarships are a little different for D2 and NAIA schools, but they still follow the same general patterns. Would the percentage change? Maybe. Possibly. The vast majority of softball scholarships go to players from states such as California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida, for example, primarily because those states have the large populations along with weather to play year round. No matter what we do in TN, we won't ever achieve a status which compares to southern California in travel ball especially at the 16UA or 18 Gold levels, but we can match them on a smaller scale by improving what we have. Travel teams playing in the spring have a decided advantage when they show up at ASA National Qualifiers and College Exposure events. As a general rule, I estimate that it takes 2-3 tournaments to get a team to a point where they gel and are clicking and playing with confidence. With HS ball in the spring, we generally get 6-7 weekends of tournament play in the summer. By moving to the fall, our teams can get all of that out of the way in April, refine in May, and be hitting on all cylinders when the National Qualifiers and Exposures hit in June. As it is now, there is a natural break at the first of August when Nationals have been completed. Rosters change for natural reasons - players graduate and move on to college; players have to move up to older age groups; the natural season has been completed and it is a logical time for parents, players, and coaches to evaluate what is best for them and their teams for the next year. Once Nationals have been completed, it is time to start building for the next year, and fall ball is the time when teams move up to the next age group. While we play from June 1 through November 1, normally with a break in August and perhaps early September when teams are holding tryouts for the next year and there are only a handful of tournaments, summer and fall are basically two seasons. With HS in the fall, the natural season would be late October showcases through late July Nationals without the Feb-May hiatus because of spring HS softball. That set up certainly would NOT hurt the TN percentages, and would likely help. Do top notch players need more exposure? I think the answer is without a doubt a resounding YES. Rivals, Scout, and other recruiting information sites might have video and ratings for every average to superstar football and boys basketball player in the country, but good luck finding any information on top notch HS aged softball players. There has long been an assumption among some that "if a player is good enough, college coaches will find them." Maybe that holds a little truth for the top 1% at best. The battlefield is littered with multitudes of top notch players who believed that myth but were never found. I see some tremendous players every weekend who are so far under the radar that they'll likely never be spotted simply because they don't know what they need to do to be "discovered" and haven't gotten the exposure to be found. College softball recruiting budgets are woefully minuscule. I don't know how many "top notch" players are out there or how you define top notch. But I do know that there are tons of legitimate college prospects in TN right now. As far as I am concerned, my definition of top notch would be potential college prospect. If the top 1% (or less) aren't getting enough exposure, I can assure you that the remaining 99% certainly are not. For every hour I spend on the field for practices and games, I easily spend 5 off the field attempting to "expose" and "sell" our players. Finally... I am not the right person to ask about motivation for top level players to play HS softball. In the vast majority of cases, I personally believe that better athletes take a step backward during the HS season. That is merely my opinion, and I am sure that there are many who disagree and that there are exceptions. I could quickly name 3-4 dozen high school starters in the area who have told me personally over the past few weeks that the only reason they are playing HS ball is because there isn't any other alternative and at least they get some batting practice against live pitching during games. I think there would be more motivation - especially given what I have written in previous posts - for them to play in the fall than in the spring. Again, I sincerely believe we are literally one coach with my mindset who puts together a "spring team" away from seeing many college prospects move out of spring HS softball completely. I would expect that others would quickly follow suit, if for no reason other than fear that those who participate on that original team would gain an advantage over their daughters.

Very likely - NCAA won't add to the 50 total currently allowed, but coaches can start evaluating on Jan 2. That is very possible. In some places, football coaches serve as softball coaches... but eliminating some of them might not be a bad thing. /dry.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" I don't know the answer to that either. I'm sure that some would object, but some always object to change. I would think their biggest complaint and concern would be TSSAA altering the 50% rule so it applied to them since they would no longer be a fall sport. I agree I strongly agree Someone below also mentioned older players participating if softball was moved to fall. I don't have any data to support that idea, but generally speaking, I think that is a very legitimate argument. I've known of a lot of seniors who are pretty good high school players but have no plans to play college softball... who decided that if they were going to spend their last spring in high school out in the sun, they were going to do it in some recreational/social activity instead of softball. I think that a lot of them would still hold an interest in playing in the fall of their senior year. The other advantage to fall ball for college prospects is that the fall State tournaments come before the November signing period (and the JUCO January signing period). The State tournament is about the only time college coaches show up for high school ball any more - very sparse attendance, but a few will show. By the time the Spring Fling and summer season following graduation rolls around, very little money or roster spots will be left available.

Are you sure he charged off the field on his own and wasn't thrown off the field by the plate umpire? /roflolk.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roflolk:" border="0" alt="roflolk.gif" /> I would have given him the ole heave-ho. If he did all of that without being asked he deserved to be tossed by his partner. I'll bet the plate ump was royally ticked and was probably happy he stomped off. I wouldn't hold my breath over not seeing him any more. While anyone who pulls something like you describe simply isn't ready to be on the field, there is a shortage of bodies to fill the blue uniforms and you very well may see him a lot this spring.

I think they do, but that is my opinion. The moves to the fall in other states have all been very recent. Softball has historically been seen as the female version of boys baseball, and baseball is never going to be considered a candidate to be moved into football season. I doubt that any thought was given when softball was introduced on a wide scale as a high school sport to place it anywhere else other than in the spring with baseball. Changing to the fall in quite a few of those 45 states isn't necessary or wouldn't make much of a difference. In much of California, the weather allows for year round softball. Southern California, for example has so many teams trying to play 18 Gold that they had series of qualifying tournaments in January to determine which teams were going to be allowed to play Gold and who would be assigned to 18U A once the Gold Nationals Qualifiers start in May. California, by the way, doesn't have a state softball tournament (or football for that matter). It is so big that they have Sectional Championships. In Kentucky, they already move the softball season back later in the spring. Their district tournaments are the same week as our Spring Fling and their State isn't until June 5-6. Plus, unless they have changed their rules this year, Kentucky players are not prohibited from playing on independent (travel) teams during their season, much less during the fall with some version of 50% rule. Tons of northern states - at least 17 - don't play State until June, with Maine's being on June 20th this year. For a lot of those states, they probably couldn't move softball to the fall because they often get winter weather in early October. States with better weather than we have are able to end much earlier. Louisiana's State is at the end of April. Mississippi and Florida are the next week. Quite a few fall when we have our districts. Anyway, all but one of the states moving to the fall have weather patterns which are very similar to Tennessee. I'm sure that there are people who don't like it - there is always a group which dissents on something - but everybody I've spoken to in those states are very happy with their decisions to move. A couple of years ago, we traveled to Oklahoma City the first weekend in June to play in an exposure the same time the Women's College World Series was being played. We played our games in the morning and went to WCWS games in the evening. One of the best trips we have ever taken by the way. Of our 6 games, we drew Missouri Madness, Oklahoma Rebels, TC Stars, (Colorado) Stars, St Louis Spirit, and Georgia (Heat or Pride - I don't remember off the top of my head) along with a Florida team. We did very well, and even though we were winning games, there was a noticeable difference in the way those 5 teams from HS fall ball states played as they had 6-10 tournaments under their belts while we were comng straight out of high school ball. They were clicking in full gear by the time they started playing in National Qualifiers and the big college exposures... and they all loved playing HS ball in the fall and having an uninterrupted spring/summer for travel. College coaches aren't too interested in who wins exposure games, and those players who have been playing travel for 2-3 months against top level competition are much smoother and polished with more intensity and a higher level mental game than those coming straight out of high school ball, and have a decided advantage in impressing coaches. I digress. Sorry. Unfortunately, I doubt if there are a lot of state governing boards who have softball on the top of their concern or interest list, and most of those 45 states won't bother considering it unless 1) they get a lot of pressure, 2) they get a executive director with daughters tied to softball, or 3) they see lots of other states start to make the move. They have to have softball because of Title IX and most view it as a minor sport that is the girls equivalent to baseball. But I feel pretty certain if the NCAA changed their recruiting rules for football or if football evolved in the way softball or basketball has with travel and AAU and it was seen as advantageous to move football to the winter or spring, it would be changed in a heartbeat without discussion or hesitation... and I would be willing to wager almost any amount of money that there would never be any form of 50% rule put in place for football in the fall before the HS season. I digress again. Sorry again. The world isn't going to come to an end if TSSAA never considers moving softball to the fall. But I think those 5 states made a terrific decision. Far less hassle with weather issues. Far less weather related injuries. Far better for those girls with aspirations to play collegiate softball. I do, however, believe that Tennessee isn't that far away from seeing a growing number of collegiate prospects foregoing HS softball in favor of spring travel over the next few years.

Some of us do and normally play through the first weekend in November. BUT college coaches (NCAA) can't come to most of the tournaments during the fall. The actual NCAA rule states: "Evaluations are not permissible from the day after Labor Day through Thanksgiving day, except from the second Friday in October through the first Sunday in November (contact/evaluation period); further, to specify that in those states that play the high school softball season in the fall, evaluations shall be permissible during the season, except during dead periods." For 2009, that means they are limited to attending 4 weekends of travel tournaments. Because of that rule, there are now multiple exposure tournaments on each of those 4 weekends instead of being spread out over a couple of months in the fall, and several of these tournaments now have 200+ teams. The established exposures that used to be in September and early October are now crammed into these 4 weeks. The second of the four weeks for example already has at least 6 exposures for fall 2009 so far that I know about. Elite Diamond Sports Showcase (TX); Surf City October Showcase (CA); America??™s Finest City (CA); Fall Bluechip Showcase (FL); Fall Fun College Exposure (SC); East Coast College Showcase (VA). When it was legal to evaluate throughout the fall - it was 11 weeks I believe - these tournaments were spread out over several months and there were a lot of decent smaller ones available. College coaches could afford (from a competitive recruiting standpoint) to go to a couple of these mega-exposures and spend the rest of the fall at smaller local tournaments - or they could hit 6-8 of the bigger ones (if the had the budget to travel that much) and still attend every smaller event within 200 miles of their university. The window is now so small that they are pretty much forced to travel to the big ones if they want to see the top prospects... but the expense for teams to attend these, especially from a state like Tennessee that isn't near any of these events is prohibitive for many teams with legitimate prospects. Most of the smaller, local exposures can no longer draw enough teams or college coaches and have ceased to exist. Fortunately for us in Tennessee, Ken Crook has been able to put together a nice smaller exposure the last of the 4 weekends over the past two years drawing 28 teams and about 35 college coaches. We have been going to Rising Stars (Ft Lauderdale, FL - 230 teams, 300+ coaches) and Ken's exposure the past couple of years on the last two legal evaluation weekends. There are also other teams which cannot play fall travel tournaments because doing so would violate the recent TSSAA 50% rule. Although the top tier teams are generally not impacted by the 50% rule because they typically draw players from multiple schools, there are a lot of good teams with the majority of their players from one school who opt not to play fall ball rather than omit half their team and pick up a lot of other players to create a "fall only' team. A lot of other teams have traditionally chosen not to play in the fall because many of their players were required to play with their high school teams in the fall. When the 50% rule went into effect this fall, there was an increase in the number of travel teams playing fall ball, and I would expect that number to increase next fall. Then there are teams which don't play in the fall because of the new TSSAA rule prohibiting all high school coaches from coaching in the fall before the HS season. There are quite a few schools who use travel ball coaches as non-faculty assistants, and some high school coaches coach travel teams as well. I'm pretty sure that Nighthawks Gold opted out of fall travel ball this year because Pat Williams serves as a non-faculty assistant at Ezell-Harding. There are several teams which chose to play and use parents to coach their travel teams in the fall instead of coaches who are affiliated with a high school as a head or assistant coach. Although I am sure that there are examples of teams where that worked out fine, I can easily name a dozen teams where it turned into a train wreck.

Moving softball to the fall would be an intelligent idea. As others have noted, those of us involved in softball, especially travel, have long supported a move. In addition to Georgia, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma also now play high school softball in the fall. I am not one who normally defends TSSAA, but is it possible that even though all of us in the softball world talk about this every year, TSSAA has not considered a change because they have never been presented with a proposal to change? That might not be the case. For all I know, it has been presented formally several times and rejected, but I don't ever recall seeing it on a Board of Control agenda. My guess is that given what many of us interpret as obvious animosity toward travel ball during the Carter era, anything which would seem to help travel softball would be rejected without hesitation. But, if it hasn't been presented to them, I really doubt that they have even thought about it. Even though there are a lot of people who enjoy high school softball, there is a growing number of players and parents who are very open to alternatives in the spring. For several years now, I've considered putting together a team of high school aged players and traveling to Dalton, Atlanta, Marietta, etc. a couple of times a month for travel tournaments. Obviously, that would remove those players from high school softball as they would not be eligible. Every time it comes up, my email and voice mail fills up with people who want their daughter to be considered if I were to do that. My gut feeling is that once the first "spring" team is put together, several others will quickly follow suit. I didn't really bring it up this year, but I still got a ton of emails and phone calls during January from people asking if I was going to do it. Interestingly enough, once the first practices began this year, I started getting calls again... and since the first scrimmages and play days have started, I'm getting even more calls. There is a lot of frustration with high school ball out there. The advantages to those players, playing that level of competition would be significant, and it might be a catalyst for TSSAA to seriously consider a move to the fall. Who knows. As far as college coaches coming to high school games if the season was moved to the fall, I don't know how valid that argument is. While it would be easier for them to come to a fall game instead of one in the spring because of their collegiate schedule, there are two main reasons why college coaches don't show up at high school games and conflicts with their practice/game schedule isn't one of the two. The NCAA places a limit on the number of evaluation days each staff is allowed every year. If a coach shows up at a high school game, they get to see 20ish players from two teams play one game (and they are probably only interested in one player) and it counts as one evaluation day. If they show up at an exposure and watch games at 8, 10, 12, 2, 4, 6, and 8, it counts as one evaluation day. 280 players from 14 teams (many of which are legitimate recruits) - and they can easily double that number by watching 2 games on adjacent fields or changing fields at the mid point of each time block. Far more bang for the buck so to speak. Additionally, the level of competition at the high school level makes it difficult for a coach to accurately evaluate players. There are certain marquee games where top high school teams with a lot of travel ball players face off against each other, but generally speaking that doesn't occur very often, and even then, it doesn't come close to comparing to what they see at a Gold qualifier or a decent exposure. There are a lot of states where many of the top players no longer play high school ball, and there are a growing number of signees and verbal commitments from players who bypassed high school ball. There is a trend in that direction, and I expect it to continue. A valid alternative to spring high school ball might be the catalyst TSSAA needs to wake up and make a logical change. Anyway, I doubt that some TSSAA executive is just going to wake up one morning and think "Hey, wouldn't it be smart to move softball to the fall. Let's see if we can do it." And if they are reading boards like this one, I'd guess they are looking for people bashing (or supporting) TSSAA and are not out here seeking intelligent ideas on how to improve high school softball in Tennessee, unfortunately.

Any information on the All District team and the All District Tournament team?