LLUmps: Special Pinch Runner
 

Did anyone see the total mixup of the SPR flap in the sixth inning of the OR/MO game?

I think it took 5 minutes to sort out what should have happened in 10 seconds.

In short, OR had used a SPR in top isix. They tried to use another. It's a simple call: a team can only invoke SPR once per inning. Sub actually ran to 1B and was standing there. Eventually, he was recalled and original B/R was placed back on first.

No language barrier involved. How inept is this game management? PU should have jumped in right away--you just can't use SPR twice in an inning.

Your thoughts?

Ace

I wasn't paying real close attention when that happened but I thought the kid was in the batting order, scored and then the coach subbed for him in the lineup and put the kid back on base as SPR.

My thoughts are that when something out of the ordinary comes up in these games (I've seen 2 this year with F5 throwing ball out of play and this SPR sitch), the umps get that "deer in the headlights look."

It's not hard to understand this rule, but I guess you would first need to read the book...

That's not what happened, Ace. What happened is what CoachTex said - a player in the lineup batted and scored. The manager wanted to then remove him from the lineup (in the 9 hole) and have him SPR for the runner who had just reached base. It was not a second SPR, it was a first SPR. The LLWS scorer, just as he had done the previous day when another manager tried the same maneuver, prohibited it.

Here's the problem - there is no Little League rule, and no published interpretation, that prohibits the maneuver. Many people, including most of the officials in the Eastern Region, want to layer in their interpretation of the NFHS "projected substitution" rule to prohibit making an offensive substitution when that particular slot in the order is not at bat at that moment. This, however, is a ruling that is being pulled right out from the nether regions, because there is no official interpretation to support it.

It's yet another example of Little League making a rule and then just sort of being AWOL when legitimate questions about its enforcement come up. The issue has now occurred twice that I know of in the LLWS, and both times the coaches have been prohibited from doing something they were probably doing routinely at lower levels of the tournament, and now they can't just because it's a different guy keeping the book.

I thought the kid already was used as a SPR (for a kid that hit a double), scored, then skip wanted to put him in as a straight sub for the runner at first.

I doubt that was the case, because the LLWS scorer presumably knows that pinch runners are normal substitutions and are allowed. That's not where the debate was centered - it was the LLWS scorer prohibiting the use of a specific player as an SPR, because he was, as far as the scorer concerned "in the lineup," and could not be removed from the lineup until it was his turn to bat.

I double-checked the tale of the tape (DVR) and I assure you that indeed was the point of contention, just as it was in one of the weekend games.

This specific situation may not be in the LL rule book, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that this manuever can't be permitted. The SPR is supposed to be someone who is not in the game, meaning he isn't on offense or defense. A person who has batted and scored is "in the game" for purposes of this rule if he has already batted and/or been a runner on the bases. Allowing him to then be a SPR would be impermissible, also violating what is known as "common sense and fair play."

It's permitted in most of the country and there's nothing written to prohibit the practice. As Dave said, a case play actually legitimizes the practice.

An endorsement of the LL Eastern Region protest committe, which was "It's legal, but don't do it again!"

Sorry, but THAT violates "common sense and fair play."

Here's the caseplay from the Right Call:

“The Right Call” Casebook -- Play 7-20: Bottom of the 7th inning, no outs and tie score, Billy strokes a single; however, he is also the team’s slowest runner. In an attempt to get speed in the game, the manager wants to use Jane as a “special pinch-runner.” Jane had been in the game in innings 3 through 6. Is this legal? Ruling: Yes. A player who is not in the lineup may be used as a special pinch runner. As long as Jane is not currently in the game (lineup); she is eligible to be pinch runner.

Now, the caseplay does not specifically address when it is determined that Jane is "not currently in the game (lineup)" but, luckily for us, the RULES do:

3.06 -- The manager shall immediately notify the umpire-in-chief of any substitution and shall state to the umpire-in-chief the substitute’s place in the batting order.
3.07 -- The umpire-in-chief after having been notified, shall immediately announce, or cause to be announced, each substitution.


Note the repeated use of the word "immediately."

You're arguing that this maneuver doesn't "feel" right from a common sense perspective, in a league whose tournament rules provide for unlimited re-entries of both starter and substitutes with no play requirement (other than meeting MPR). Given the freedom of substitution the tournament rules clearly and intentionally provide for, getting hinky over pulling a player from the lineup and inserting him as a SPR is pretty minor, in context, doncha think?

I think it's a way to cheat, albeit in a rather mild way. Personally, I wouldn't get all worked up about this or the SPR altogether. If an official interp. covers this, I have no qualms about that. My contention is that absent anything official, if someone were to do this in an attempt to otherwise circumvent the SPR mandates, then it shouldn't be permitted.

Regardless, I DO believe that having the same runner run twice in the same half-inning violates the spirit and intent of the rule. IMHO, Williamsport ought to rework this a bit.

I really think this was the case. The kid who had just scored WAS a SPR. Coach thought he could re-use the same kid as a SPR for another runner.

Dave, I'm pretty sure this was the case. But good pernt you bring up on the "projected sub."

Ace