All the coach had to do was play the kid in the top of the sixth and he would have fulfilled the defensive requirement of the 3 consecutive outs. Then he would have been able to play the bottom of the sixth.

The MPR rule for tournament play has an exception for shortened games, but does not include games shortened because the home team did not need the bottom of the sixth, or any extra inning in order to win. 10-run rule games are exempted from the MPR rule in tournament play, and also in League play if the Local League elects not to impose a penalty on the manager.

Also, in League play, there is no forfeit penalty whatsoever for a MPR violation. The player(s) who didn't fulfill the requirement must start the next scheduled game and then fulfill the requirement before being replaced in the lineup.

All he had to do, then, was pinch hit the kid that neeed playing time in the bottom of the fifth and then play him in the top of the sixth. You ALWAYS start the MPR cycle with an at bat when possible cause he can get his playing time in the field. Instead, the coach put him in the field and not for someone guaranteed to bat. Too bad.

Hey, for those that don't like it -- it's the rule and the coaches hear all the horror stories of forfeits. This just becomes the biggest one.

The last all star team I coached won a state championship. The team had 13 players and the top 3 players were clearly better than the rest (these 3 were starters on D1 baseball teams in the spring). The difference between #4 and #12 was very small. And they all worked very hard and they all deserved playing time, which they got. We did not have a mandatory play requirement, but I worked hard to get them all some playing time. Oh, and you might wonder about #13, he was hand picked by me (league allowed the coach to pick the last 2 players from the top 8 vote getters who were not in the top 11 vote getters) to be a closer. He pitched the 6th in quite a few games, retired the side on 11 pitches in one of the state tournament games that we led 1-0 going into the bottom of the 6th. And at practice he worked hard at batting, and fielding just like everybody else but he knew what his job was and we would not have won without him, the 13th and final pick.

These are All-Star teams,right? Coach to win, not to appease players or
parents with playing time. This is "best of the best" time, not regular season
Regular season, little Johnny's mom paid for him to play, therefore he should
get playing time. Nobody is forced to participate in all star tournaments. I
believe these coaches want to win, and they would play the best lineup to
win games. If little Johnny is the tenth-best player on the team, so be it.
Get him in when you can, but don't bump better players so Johnny doesn't
lose self-esteem.

P.S.
Yes, I understand that parents pay for all star teams, also. No need to
jump on me about that...... :D

I think we are getting some opinions here from some who have never coached a youth league team at all, and/or never coached an all star team.

Also, the rule is modified from the regular season. A player only needs 3 consecutive outs and 1 AB to fulfill his MPR, it's 6 outs in the regular season.

Like the rule or not - it's really not that tough to comply.

I mentioned this in an earlier post, Walt.;)

I think you're missing my point. Let me try another approach.
I have a very good friend who is an NCAA D-2 hockey coach. Every year, he has players arrive on campus who have always been in the top 5% of every team with which they've played. Perennial All Stars at every level. They stride into the locker room at the start of the season only to find that the room is full of all stars. During the course of the pre-season, it's apparent to coach that they're very good players, but he wants to redshirt them for a year. Many times, these kids either transfer to a smaller school or quit playing all together because the've never had to deal with this type of disappointment before. That is a shame.
Youth sports are supposed to build character. What is learned by constantly shielding youngsters from disappointment. Let kids experience the agony of defeat, that makes the sweet smell of victory that much sweeter.

BTW- I have coached both LL baseball and youth hockey. I have always followed the MPR for little league because that's the rule. On the ice, I almost never tried to match-up line changes, although, at times when the game was on the line, the weaker players may have sat in order to preserve the tie or win. In 10+ years, the only parent to complain about her kids ice time was the mother of my son.

Your point was that MPR chap your a**. NCAA sports and youth leagues are entirely different. And hockey is a different forum.

In fact, I was talking about someone else, the fire-breathing guy who was calling the New York Times traitorous and stuff. Having begun my post with a quote of your prior post, that surely wasn't clear, and for that I apologize.

Oh, I see we're back to correcting my mistakes again. Yes, I misread. I missed the part where the kid already played defense. So what? The details are far less important than the point. You spend way too much time worrying about what I write. Smileys don't cover up sarcasm.:)

I also realized my mistake about 4 hours ago, but unlike you, I dont' go back and delete or alter my posts so as not to look bad, like some people (you) I know.

You're still missing my point
 

Ok.... I'll spell it out for you. My point wasn't that MPR chaps my a$$, but rather that such rules only serve to strengthen the feeling of entitlement that far too many kids possess. The chaping is not a result of the fact that Johnny must play, it's a result of what Johnny learns from this sitch (ie that I deserve this just because I'm here). Far too many young people have the opinion that they are owed something. That was my point.

BTW- these NCAA kids are learning this at a very young age. They learn it from Mom and Dad, the schools, and youth sports.

I hate it when I agree with PWL !!!



Doug

That's the kind of "magazine" prose that we won't publish at Officiating.com. No insight, no life, no controversy, no entertainment.

Just the kind of the pap they teach you to churn out in journalism school.

You're a good man, Steve. ;)