No one is teaching runners to be gun shy, just teaching them to follow the rules.
Leaving early may be "agressive base running" but the problem is that it's against the rules!
As for the SPR keeping the kids on the base "ready to go" - maybe, but once you use an SPR in an inning does that mean the other players lose focus?
That said, what about "Johnny can't hit" who finally gets his first hit and then gets replaced by an SPR, what does that say to Johnny?
I owe you drink.
You ARE teaching them to be gun shy. Almost all the time the only punishment is "go back" because most of the time the ball isn't put in play on the pitch. As of now, the only restriction on advancing is when you can go. Making it an out sends the message that you cannot go. You are requiring them to have a penalty that they will never have again in their baseball lives. WHY?
And the kid removed for a SPR won't lose focus because he knows he's going right back in.
Rich - I guess we'll just disagree on this one (no problem).
As for "You are requiring them to have a penalty that they will never have again in their baseball lives. WHY?"
Well then why have the rule in the first place? They are never going to see a "no lead-off" rule again either!!!
In addition, the kid removed for a SPR won't lose focus because he knows he's going right back in - Maybe/Maybe not.
If he's a sub and he's met MPR then when he's replaced by an MPR he's done.
Do you really think the kid that was removed for an SPR is going to go in as an MPR later in the game?
I've seen managers replace a kid who just got his first hit of the year with an MPR.
The kid finally gets on base only to be replaced, put yourself in his shoes.
Again, this is a LL rule that these players will never see in the rest of their baseball lives - why have it?
The trooper is sitting at ---[what was called]--a luncheonette; not a drug store.
But the stool he is sitting on was also prevalent in drug store soda fountains back then.
I cleaned many of them working as a "soda-jerk" in our neighborhood drug store late 1940's.
We had five for our sitting customers. Exactly as pictured above, except our color was red not green.
You're preaching to the choir by telling me why the starter for starter re-entry rule is there.
Read the last three sentences of my subject post again.
That's what "I am after"
MPR---6 &1----mandated PLAYING TIME, all players in the game.
Mandated "CONDITION" for a starter to re-enter for a starter who replaced him---6 & 1.
Apples and oranges, right!---But the confusion/problem emerges when both are seen as ALL apples.
I would remove the prohibition of the coachers coming onto the field until the last warmup is thrown.
I do think it's smart to observe that there are usually 4 basbealls zinging around the field by less than skilled players. But if an adult gets hit, he's got insurance! If a kid gets hit, he's got a helmet!
Yeah, the LL fields are smaller and more confined, but it's usually easy to figure out where you should stand to stay out of the line of fire.
I bet there was a freak injury or a lawsuit where this rule came from.
Are we forgetting that conventional pinch-runners were used by LL Inc .before the SPR rule was enacted; in use with SPR in the book; and will continue to be used if the SPR is ever deleted from the rulebook.
We all know the applications of each-[be it SPR or conventional pinch-runner]-- carry specific guidelines/rules/ramifications if you will.-----but the point is: a player on base is replaced.
If I were a LL baseball wizard, I would immediately 1. return the game to all wood bats thru majors....., and 2. place into the rule book the following phrase..........."Runners are NOT REQUIRED TO SLIDE INTO A BASE".
I would definitely get rid of starters changing places in the line-up. I wou;d do it like *** and most other youth baseball and tie the sub and starter together.
Michael S. Taylor
I would let coaches warm up pitchers, BUT make them wear mask and confirm VERBALLY they have protection on.
Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it!
Now that we can finally post again, here's one more I'd like to see: With two outs, require catchers in the Majors division to catch the third strike to record the strike out. I still think it's ridiculous to see a Majors catcher miss a third strike that ends the inning, and instead of going after the ball, he just heads to the dugout. These kids are supposed to be the best catchers in the league at the 12 and under level, and they can't keep a ball in front of them when the batter swings and misses? If they can't catch the strike, allow the batter to advance to first, just like they can at higher levels.
Frankly, I prefer that all of 6.09(b) apply at the Majors level, so that batters can also advance to first if the third strike is uncaught and there is no runner at first base. LL implemented the rule in Majors softball this year; they should do the same in Majors baseball. But at the very least, require that the rule be in place with two outs.
Good one Manny!
For Majors, an uncaught K3 should be OBR'ish with zero, one or two outs.
....and flip-flopping regular season starter & sub-[same batting slot]- as in T-play Michael??
If "yes"..... the regular season rule not allowing a sub off the bench to re-enter; and only allowing a starter, once replaced by a sub off the bench, to re-enter once, must go!
Otherwise your suggestion would eliminate #5 under Rule 3.03.....and keep all else under Rule 3.03 in place.
One way or the other, your suggestion would eliminate my "problem" --[-allready posted above]---re the "mandated" 6 & 1 MPR....and the "conditional" 6 & 1 "starter for starter" re-entry requirement "clashing" in many LL minds due to being numerically co-incidental.
I think we are after the same thing, making the line-up stay the same. I dislike taking a starter out and reinserting him elsewhere in the line-up. I am not suggesting to allow subs to reenter.
Michael S. Taylor