Skip navigation

Up to Threads in Rules
1116 Views 8 Replies Latest reply: Jul 5, 2011 11:36 AM by Frank_B RSS
Frank_B Legend
Frank_B
1,316 posts since
May 30, 2007
Currently Being Moderated

Jul 1, 2011 8:36 AM

MPR-LL T-rules-Am I understanding this right?

On June 30  LL Inc., sent out a letter to all subscribed ordained league personnel; impacting baseball & softball T-play MPR.

 

Up to my receiving this letter  a starter could be replaced before fulfilling the required MPR--[still true]- but must be re-inserted sometime before the game ends---[absent a shortened game]--to fulfill his/her  required MP.

 

Now, my "understanding"..... under the "old" T- play MP rules, with  three defensive outs being required, plus of course, one at-bat----if a starter  played only one defensive out--and batted once--- and was replaced, he/she had to be re-inserted to play two more defensive outs. IOW----the 1st defensive out played counted towards the collective total of three required---MP fulfilled.

 

With the new 2011 T-play MP required, based on the number of players, in uniform and eligible to start the gsme, MP is either to be six or three defensive outs, and one at-bat.

 

With the word "CONSECUTIVE" in CAPS and BOLD type as applied to defensive outs;  the just received letter--[which BTW--that word, in the past,  being applicable to a sub entering for a starter]---my "understanding" in reading the subject letter, a starter replaced before fulfilling his/her mandated defensive outs, must play those six defensive CONSECUTIVELY.

 

Meaning--[ I think]-- if said starter had played any less than six consecutive defensive outs before being replaced, say for example played four, those four will NOT count towards fulfilling his/her defensive outs requirement. The letter saying said starter, absent a shortened game, must be re-entered and play six CONSECUTIVE defensive outs to fulfill his/her MP game requirement------the 1st four D-outs played do not count.

 

Which, BTW---in regular season play, ALL defensive outs played before his/her being replaced counted, collectively,  towards the six total required for a starter.

IOW---- six played consecutively was not required--->  As noted in the just received letter. Only a sub was required to play all six consecutively.

 

Frank!

  • Phillieball Pro
    Phillieball
    99 posts since
    Mar 23, 2001
    Currently Being Moderated
    1. Jul 1, 2011 10:04 PM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: MPR-LL T-rules-Am I understanding this right?

    I am curious as to where you think this would make a difference on a 13+ player team other than due to a starter being removed for injury early in the game.  I can see where it might be a concern if the team had twelve or fewer where you needed to get kids 6 consecutive +1 and weren't getting many runners on early.

     

    How often does anyone see defensive changes made mid-inning?  Back when the requirement was 3 or 1, I did hear a manager think out loud about trying to get the defensive subs in regardless of outs when 6, 7 and 8 in the order were coming up (with 9 as a cushion before bringing back the starters for the top of the order.) 

  • Frank_B Legend
    Frank_B
    1,316 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    2. Jul 2, 2011 7:56 AM (in response to Phillieball)
    Re: MPR-LL T-rules-Am I understanding this right?

    The 6 &1 is my primary "concern" too.

     

    I suppose if I had used an example of a starter being replaced after playing three defensive outs instead of (my) using four in my OP, your question re making a change mid-inning--[or after one out in a new inning]--would not of surfaced.

     

    However, I believe you are missing my point. That being, no matter how many LESS than six consecutive outs a starter played, that starter, if replaced, those outs don't count toward his required six consecutive outs. Meaning, if he/she played three D-outs before being replaced, cannot be replaced again until he/she played six-- consecutive defensive outs.

    Which BTW-----in regular season rules, a starter is not required to play six consecutive defensive outs------just six defensive outs ---and can be replaced before fulfilling those six so long as he/she is re-entered to collectively play six defensive outs.   [ six not required in a shortened game, also applies to batting once, as the case may be]

     

    The regular season rule allowing a starter to be replaced, as with T-play, before fulfilling the minimum MP is what I "allowed" to influence my thinking in my OP.

    Yes--I know some regular season rules are changed and/or do not exist in T-play------but I have a personal opinion-[which, as a district rules director, I  keep to myself]-- against a starter having played---for example---3 consecutive defensive outs----and upon being replaced, having to play six more defensive consecutive in order to avoid a violation.

     

    But that's just me!!!

     

    BTW---In retrospect I was wrong in my entire 3rd paragraph of my OP----even with the T-play MP being three defensive outs, they had to be consecutive. Again allowing the regular season rule to mess with my thinking.

     

    Frank!

  • Phillieball Pro
    Phillieball
    99 posts since
    Mar 23, 2001
    Currently Being Moderated
    3. Jul 2, 2011 10:44 AM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: MPR-LL T-rules-Am I understanding this right?

    I do get your point on less than 6 consecutive don't count.  I spent a lot of time and effort trying to convince my board that we should have at least 13 on every Tournament team because of the new requirement.

     

    Some of the new-to-Tournament coaches were arguing that it was harder to deal with 13 or 14 than work with 12 under the new rule.  I was saying that the penalty for not rostering #13 would be much more severe than they thought.  With 13, you could have all of your MPR out of the way by the end of the third inning if you did well offensively.  With 12, it's at least the end of the fourth.  If you don't get runners on in the early innings, your starters might not get back in until the fifth or sixth.

     

    The new rule is changing strategy.  In the first Tournament we hosted, the manager who won the coin flip wanted to be Visitors, not Home.  When I asked why, he said that with 12, it's better to be Visitors because with a little luck at the plate, he could make his first defensive subs in the bottom of the third.  If he was Home, it would be top of the fourth unless he subbed for players earlier in the order.  It also meant that his starters could return a defensive inning earlier.

     

    On a related note, since the shortening of a game trumps the MPR rule, is there any repercussion if a manager who gets an 8 or 9 run lead early in the game does not substitute at all in anticipation of a mercy win in the fourth inning?

  • Frank_B Legend
    Frank_B
    1,316 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    4. Jul 3, 2011 6:58 AM (in response to Phillieball)
    Re: MPR-LL T-rules-Am I understanding this right?

    To the question.

     

    I'm thinking-----albeit his/her call...a manager is "rolling the dice" in doing what you described..

     

    For example: If said manager is the visiting team with a 10+ run lead upon completion of the top  4th--[talking Majors level here]-- and the home team narrows the lead to less than 10 runs in their bottom half of the 4th,  the game continues.

     

    Then its entirely possible the home team--[and I have seen it done]--in the bottom of the 4th, and/or 5th collectively, the home team takes and keeps the lead; and assuming MPR of 6 & 1 applying.....with the home team not having to bat in the bottom of the 6th----guess what??     No way can the manager get his subs in to play their required FULL complement of six consecutive defensive out

     

    The penalties, as spelled out in the MPR rules, will kick in.

    Possibly other scenarios exist where said manager's "tactic" could come back and "bite him/her."

     

     

    Now, LL Inc. does say, in a official regulation game, stopped for reasons beyond managers control---[ when, by rule, a winner can be determined]---and a player or players did not have an opportunity to fulfill their full MPR----no penalty for the manager(s)---but, the players impacted must start the next scheduled game and cannot be replaced until said players have played  their full 6 & 1 for the game at hand, PLUS, what MP they missed in the shortened game.

     

    Frank!

  • Phillieball Pro
    Phillieball
    99 posts since
    Mar 23, 2001
    Currently Being Moderated
    5. Jul 3, 2011 7:16 AM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: MPR-LL T-rules-Am I understanding this right?

    Now, LL Inc. does say, in a official regulation game, stopped for reasons beyond managers control---[ when, by rule, a winner can be determined]---and a player or players did not have an opportunity to fulfill their full MPR----no penalty for the manager(s)---but, the players impacted must start the next scheduled game and cannot be replaced until said players have played  their full 6 & 1 for the game at hand, PLUS, what MP they missed in the shortened game.

     

    That's the regular season MPR make-up rule.  Since the MPR provision in Tournament Rule 9 doesn't include it, is it still in play?  The penalties spelled out are for the manager.

  • Frank_B Legend
    Frank_B
    1,316 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    6. Jul 4, 2011 7:57 AM (in response to Phillieball)
    Re: MPR-LL T-rules-Am I understanding this right?

    Actually the make-up quoted in my last post pertains to game stopped beyond a manager's control.

     

    But, your right on both counts as to being spelled out in regular season rules...but not spelled out in T-rule #9.  

     

    BUT---Is it still in play?

     

    Go to page T-1. ---2011 Rulebook.

     

    Quote: "RULES: Except where noted in these Tournament Rules and Guidelines, the Little League Baseball Official Regulations and Playing Rules will be used in the conduct of".....end quote!!   .[does  specify all divisions of T-play]

     

    I believe that statement would apply in this discussion. Make-up of a player's missed MP in T-play would follow regular season compliance absent anything to the contrary, or even being mentioned, in the T-rules.

     

    Frank!

  • Lou_B Community Moderator
    Lou_B
    1,306 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    7. Jul 5, 2011 5:56 AM (in response to Frank_B)
    Re: MPR-LL T-rules-Am I understanding this right?

    Rulte T-9 "is" the Minimum Play Rule for Tournament Play and it does NOT have a Player Penalty associated with it.

    In other words, no matter what happens, there is No Requirement that a Player who does not meet MPR in a Tournament Game needs to start the next game and remain in the game until he/she meets MPR for the two games.

  • Frank_B Legend
    Frank_B
    1,316 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    8. Jul 5, 2011 11:36 AM (in response to Lou_B)
    Re: MPR-LL T-rules-Am I understanding this right?

    Party-pooper!  I thought I had PB "sold"    

     

    Agreeing with you; but still not clear in my mind, why in regular season play but not in T-play??

     

    Please, no "come-backs" from the "gallery" telling me lots of regular season rules, guidelines,policies, do not show, or are different, in LL T-play.

    I'm talking "one tree in the forest."

     

    Frank!

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...