Active Community: Message List

Hello?? Here's one for discussion....

guest — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:51:48 GMT

Thanks for the additional info. And thanks for sharing the situation with us so we can all learn from it.

Hello?? Here's one for discussion....

guest — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:48:48 GMT

Manny_A wrote:

So, some follow-on questions. For clarity sake, let's call the starting RF Ralph, his sub Sam, and the starting pitcher Paul.

The improper substitution took place the moment the manager indicated Ralph would now pitch for Paul, and it was accepted by the UIC and Official Scorer. IF the opposing manager protested at that point:

- What happens to Ralph? Does he revert back to being tied with Sam, and once Sam meets MPR, he can be re-entered for Sam? Or is he now tied to Paul's position in the batting order?
- Can Ralph eventually come in to pitch later? Or was he "physically removed from the mound" when the protest took place, and he loses his pitching eligibility for the game, even though he never threw a pitch?
- Can Paul come back in and continue pitching right after the protest as if he was never replaced? Or was he also "physically removed from the mound" when Ralph entered improperly?

BTW, I'm surprised that WP allowed "Ralph" to continue pitching in the original scenario. If the decision was to remove "Ralph" until "Sam" met his MPR, and then allow "Ralph" back into the game, why was "Ralph" allowed to continue pitching? He was removed from the lineup to allow "Sam" to get his one at-bat, so he shouldn't have been allowed to re-enter as the pitcher, IMHO.

If the improper subsitution had been protested immediately, I believe:

1. Ralph goes back to the bench and can re-enter for Sam once Sam has met MPR

2. Ralph can come back to pitch later because he was never legally the pitcher

3. Paul cannot continue to pitch because the manager already removed him as the pitcher

I admit, I'm a little vague on the rule support for 2 and 3, but this is what I have always understood to be the case if an attempted illegal substitution is caught before any play transpires.

I believe Ralph was allowed to continue pitching under the original scenario because either:

A. As Rich said, this was the topic of a subsequent protest and thus not resolved "immediately" (not clear from the OP if there was one protest or two)

B. WP decided that Ralph met the letter of the rule allowing a pitcher, who has met MPR, to be pinch-hit for, once, since Ralph was not physically replaced on the mound. Of course, Ralph was "removed for a substitute batter" but was removed for being an improper substitute. For me, this is enough to take Ralph off the mound for the rest of the game.

Finally let me say that I'm not particularly fond of the wording in 10 f, "Protests involving improper substitution not resolved before the next pitch or play shall not be considered." Is the "next pitch or play" the one after the improper substitution or the one after the protest resulting from subsequently discovering the improper substitution. I believe it is the latter and the resolution of the protest in the OP was to put Ralph back on the bench until Sam completed MPR. So, all this phrase is saying is that once you protest an improper substitution, you can't protest it again. Is there any infraction that can be protested twice? Note, this is different (IMO) from the interpretation of the similar phrase on page T-11, "Protests involving playing rules not resolved before the next pitch or play shall not be considered." - which means you can't protest a misapplied rule from last inning, although you can protest an improper substitution from last inning (IMO). After all, if WP had not considered the (first) protest in the OP, Ralph would still be batting in Paul's spot and Sam would still be in the game.

Hello?? Here's one for discussion....

guest — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:39:26 GMT

So, the net is that the manager gets to use his pitcher for the better part of two innings when he is supposed to be on the bench and because the umpires and official scorekeeper screwed up and, perhaps more importantly, the other team was asleep at the switch, there is _no_ penalty - not even taking him off the mound. I assume if the improper substitution had been noticed during one of his first two innings on the mound, he would have been removed from the game (as he was) and, thus, not been allowed to pitch for the remainder of the game even if allowed to re-enter.

BB - do you have any opinion on whether the manager knew he was violating the substitution rule or just made a mistake? Also, was the other team made aware of the substitution in right field at the top of the third? Did the manager say anything to anyone about the fact that his pitcher was coming off the bench rather than just switching positions? Was it one of those cases where a bunch of kids are in and out of the dugout so it's not clear a sub was made? Or did the new pitcher just walk out of the dugout and no one thought to ask who he was subbing for?

Sorry for all the questions, but I have one more. Were there two separate protests - one when the sub came up to bat and one more when the pitcher went back to the mound or were both questions addressed as part of the first protest call?

LL Pitching in Resume Game

guest — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:13:24 GMT

Manny_A wrote:

Mark__P wrote:

How about this scenario:

Bobby (visitors) and Tommy (home) start a championship game. In the third inning, rains come and the game is called. When called, Bobby was at 21 pitches, and Tommy was at 40. The next day, the game is resumed. Bobby pitches 29 pitches, and Tommy only pitches 11. The team that wins forces an "If" game that will be played in three days (there was some more rain).

Bobby can pitch in the If game, but Tommy, despite having thrown 18 fewer pitches in the resumption, may not pitch in the If game. Is this completely unreasonable?

Why would Bobby be able to pitch in the If game three days later? In your scenario, and assuming LL's decision in the protest Lou mentioned, Bobby's rest requirements would be based upon the combination of his 21 pitches when the game was called, plus the 29 he pitched when it was resumed. Both Bobby and Tommy have 51 pitches total that carry over, which I think is wrong.

Tweaking your scenario, assume Bobby pitched only 19 pitches when the game was called, and then he threw 50 when it resumed. Why should Tommy be burdened with 51 pitches (combining the two halves of the game), and Bobby be burdened with only 50 pitches (not combining the two halves)?

LL's exceptions in "g" and "h" only cover pitching eligibility (in terms of the number of pitches allowed) for when the game resumes. I have no problem with, in your scenario, allowing Bobby to go up to 64 pitches when the game resumes, but limiting Tommy to only 45. What I do have a problem with is that the combination (or lack thereof) also affects the number of days of rest needed afterwards. Rest is based upon pitches delivered in a DAY, not a GAME. That's what the rules clearly stipulate.

1. 21+29=50 not 51 (I did not choose these numbers by accident)

2. Since LL is suspending its own days of rest requirement and allowing Tommy to pitch on no days rest after throwing 40 pitches, it seems reasonable to me that those pitches should factor in to his future rest requirements. I'm not sure it is reasonable to ignore 20 or fewer pitches, but at least this is consistent with up to 20 pitches requiring 0 days of rest. (For example, if Tommy throws 40 pitches on Monday and 20 pitches on Tuesday, should he be allowed to pitch on Wednesday? - if we ignore the 40 pitches on Monday, then the answer is yes, but if the resumption had not occurred on Tuesday, then just the 40 pitches on Monday would prevent Tommy from pitching on Wednesday.)

3. I don't think it makes sense to apply "g" in any way to games resumed after the next day (either to a. circumvent rest days, or b. determine number of pitches the pitcher of record can throw in the resumption or c. to determine days of rest)

Calander days rest

guest — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:17:35 GMT

Manny_A wrote:

[snip]

Still, it is something that should be covered by the tournament rules or the FAQs, along with how pitches delivered in called games and when they resume should be tallied for rest purposes.

I agree completely - it would be nice to have a sentence indicating that playing past midnight doesn't change the calendar day of the game.

Clarifying how to calculate days of rest required after the continuation of a suspended game (for pitchers who pitch in both halves) is much more important, IMO.

Calander days rest

guest — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:37:51 GMT

Manny_A wrote:

[snip]

I guess I don't care for SWR's ruling in the OP's situation. The rest rule clearly states "calendar day", so when midnight is reached, we have a new calendar day, do we not? What's the difference between the game continuing on past midnight, and the game being suspended after midnight due to curfew and then resuming eight hours later? They say the pitcher can't pitch in the former, but he can in the latter. Why? If the kid has stayed off the mound for the right number of calendar days, by rule, then he should gain his full eligibility.

If there is an exception to be made for this particular case, then state so in the rules.

Let's look at the flip side. Are you going to take the pitcher off the mound at midnight (in the middle of an at-bat) because he pitched on Tuesday and requires days of rest starting on Wednesday?

What about the (Juniors) starting pitcher who was removed from the mound but remained in the game - can he throw 50 pitches to start the game on Tuesday and then come back to close it out on Wednesday at 12:10am?

If the pitcher can remain in the game, do the pitches thrown on Tuesday count differently from the pitches thrown on Wednesday for determining days of rest?

Changing the "calendar day" in the middle of the game opens a can of worms - perhaps even more than suspending the game and resuming it the next day

The easy (and, IMO, sensible) thing is to simply say that everything that happens up to the curfew is as if it happened on the calendar day on which the game started.

Dad Scorebook outside the dugout

guest — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:52:48 GMT

The transition from two adults allowed to three adults allowed in regular season play happened _way_ before the tournament roster size penalty.

The order of events was:

1. Two adults allowed, one could be a base coach, the other stayed in the dugout.

2. Three adults allowed, one could be a base coach, the other two stayed in the dugout

(this change was made to bring the scorekeeper into the dugout)

3. Two adult base coaches allowed

(by now people had forgotten about bringing the scorekeeper into the dugout and wondered why it was necessary to have two adults in the dugout while on offense)

4. MPR introduced into tournament play (this might have come before #3, I can't quite remember)

5. Restriction to two adults for teams with fewer than 13 players

6. MPR increase for teams with fewer than 13 players.

7. Today

Re: Dad Scorebook outside the dugout

guest — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:26:43 GMT

1)---Yes---while one adult in the dugout is mandated and does in fact occur; but more often than not, there are TWO adults in the the dugout or dugout opening on offense;

Perhaps in your neck of the woods. I don't believe I have ever seen a game locally, at any level from Majors through Seniors, in-house or district all-star in which a team had three adults but put a player out as a base coach.

On your second point, I don't think Manny disagrees with that, he is only saying that, for half of the game each of the three adults need to give their full attention to the game/players, so who is left to keep score?

I will mention one more time that when the number of adults allowed was increased from 2 to 3, this was for the express purpose of bringing the book into the dugout. But then LL forgot about that and increased the allowed number of adult base coaches from 1 to 2. If LL really wants to have the book in the dugout and allows two adult base coaches, then they should allow a fourth adult in the dugout (and require at least two adults in the dugout at all times - hehe). Or have a player do the book while on offense - double hehe.

LL Pitching in Resume Game

guest — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:22:48 GMT

Manny_A wrote:

I'm not debating that one pitch matters. My point with my scenario was that it allows the pitcher who threw more pitches when the game resumed to pitch in the next game, while the one who threw less cannot. I can't imagine that would be the case.

LL should make it consistent. Either all pitches in the game get combined, regardless how many were thrown before the game was called, to determine rest, or not.

How about this scenario:

Bobby (visitors) and Tommy (home) start a championship game. In the third inning, rains come and the game is called. When called, Bobby was at 21 pitches, and Tommy was at 40. The next day, the game is resumed. Bobby pitches 29 pitches, and Tommy only pitches 11. The team that wins forces an "If" game that will be played in three days (there was some more rain).

Bobby can pitch in the If game, but Tommy, despite having thrown 18 fewer pitches in the resumption, may not pitch in the If game. Is this completely unreasonable?

Is it even reasonable to let Tommy pitch in the resumption, given that, according to (e), he should have had two days of rest before pitching again? How does his arm know this is the resumption of a suspended game rather than the next game in pool play?

LL Pitching in Resume Game

guest — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:08:20 GMT

Manny_A wrote:

[snip]

I just have a hard time with this potential scenario, if it's as you think it is:

Bobby (visitors) and Tommy (home) start a championship game. In the third inning, rains come and the game is called. When called, Bobby was at 20 pitches, and Tommy was at 21. The next day, the game is resumed. Bobby can pitch up to 85 pitches, while Tommy can only pitch 64. Bobby only pitches 35 pitches, and Tommy also only pitches 34. The team that wins forces an "If" game that will be played in two days.

Both pitchers threw 55 pitches in the championship game. But you would argue that only 35 of Bobby's pitches count towards his rest requirements, while all 55 pitches count towards Tommy's. So Bobby can pitch in the "If" game since he only required one day of rest, and Tommy cannot because he required THREE days of rest. Just because of one pitch!

Sometimes, one pitch matters.

Suppose, the following year, Bobby was at 40 pitches and Tommy was at 41 pitches when the rains came down. The next day, when they resume the game, Bobby can pitch up to 45 more pitches but Tommy can't pitch at all. The day after that, they play the "If" game. Tommy can't pitch in that game either because he needs two days of rest from his 41 pitch rain-suspended outing.