[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The ASA rule book is a benefit of registration. PERIOD!

That's simply stating a fact. The question is, "Why?"

I approached the computer geek of the NUS, Steve's good friend, about putting the rules on-line for registered member, but we all know that passwords would be freely distributed.

The issue isn't just about putting the rules online. If you have to PAY to see the rules, one way or the other, I find that philosophically bizarre.

BTW, PONY moved to more ASA-like rules because, at least in this area, poach ASA umpires along with the uniforms. I know umpires who were told to use ASA rules when working PONY tournaments because it didn't make any difference.

I don't see where it's a problem for an organization to say that they are going to adopt the *same* rules as used by ASA. It's mostly a matter of expediency. Why reinvent the wheel? The sport of softball is what it is. ASA doesn't own the sport any more than they "own" the Infield Fly Rule.

Leagues register PONY for the benefit of "earning" non-qualifying berths to what are basically open national tournaments.

So?

An organization can run their national tournaments in any manner they find appropriate. If the system proves to be faulty then teams will "vote" with their feet - they simply won't attend.

There are many people who think that the ASA's system of running qualifiers and national tournaments is flawed. 3-game guarantee. No pool games. Double elimination. Yet, teams that lose their first two games are *not* eliminated. On the other hand, a team that loses-wins-loses *is* eliminated. If you lose your first game of the tournament the second game amounts to not much more than a practice game because losing your first two games does *not* eliminate a team. Such a team could, theoretically, go on to be the tournament champion despite having lost two games in a double elimination tournament.

I know many teams that don't pursue ASA qualifying tournaments because you simply don't get a lot of "bang for the buck." Who wants to travel a long distance to possibly play only 3 games?

And the crazy thing is that not until recently, ASA created this 3-game guarantee provision for these tournaments. Previously, one quarter of the teams attending these tournaments were eliminated in only two games. Tournament over! I'm sure the complaints piled high until they modified the tournament format with a 3-game guarantee. But that interjected another flaw ... the possibility of a 2-game-loser champion.

Why do they have such a format? My guess - it allows more teams to attend (read: MONEY!) because you are eliminating teams early and often thus allowing the facility to handle a greater number of teams. There's basically no room nor time for pool play based on the number of teams in the tournament.

To be fair, many years ago, my daughter's 12U team played in an NSA "A" National Tournament in Jupiter, FL - and they adopted the same tournament format. Nobody liked it.

People were saying, "You mean if we should lose our first two games we're not eliminated? Is this a double elimination tournament or not?"

David Emerling
Memphis, TN