The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Batting the entire roster (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/102828-batting-entire-roster.html)

CecilOne Mon Jul 24, 2017 06:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu (Post 1008014)
The rules book doesn't specify any of this. Not everyone is reading Plays & Clarifications among the umpire community. Coaches certainly aren't reading this stuff.

Along with lots of other things, but the problem is lack of communication to umpires. :eek:

Hush, Irish. :rolleyes: No rants!

Tru_in_Blu Mon Jul 24, 2017 08:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 1008107)
Which seems clear, what AFAIK most have been doing.
Is that the same clarification posted by Ted in the OP?

Then, the re-entry note in the OP makes no sense to me. :eek:

There were 2. One came in March of 2015 and seemed really messed up. The most recent one is July of 2015. That seemed to clean things up a little bit, but only for those that managed to see this interpretation. Not everyone seeks this out.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Jul 24, 2017 09:10pm

And if there are no "subs" and you eject a player, is the game over?

It is possible to have multiple vacant spots for outs throughout the game. I imagine that could become somewhat interesting.

teebob21 Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 1008112)
And if there are no "subs" and you eject a player, is the game over?

Yes. This was hammered home at the coaches' meeting this year. Not one of my pool play games batted the entire roster. I guess they didn't want to give up their courtesy runners or risk an EJ causing a forfeit. :D

Manny A Tue Jul 25, 2017 07:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by teebob21 (Post 1008116)
Yes. This was hammered home at the coaches' meeting this year. Not one of my pool play games batted the entire roster. I guess they didn't want to give up their courtesy runners or risk an EJ causing a forfeit. :D

Why would one ejection cause a forfeit if the team bats everyone? It was my understanding that the rule still allows for a team to lose players up to the point where they drop to eight active players when the ninth is ejected.

CecilOne Tue Jul 25, 2017 07:38am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 1008112)
It is possible to have multiple vacant spots for outs throughout the game. I imagine that could become somewhat interesting.

Yes, down to a minimum of 8 BATTERS.

IRISHMAFIA Tue Jul 25, 2017 08:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 1008117)
Why would one ejection cause a forfeit if the team bats everyone? It was my understanding that the rule still allows for a team to lose players up to the point where they drop to eight active players when the ninth is ejected.

That would be through any reason other than ejection. It is clearly stated in 4.1.D.2.a & Exception

CecilOne Tue Jul 25, 2017 08:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 1008112)
And if there are no "subs" and you eject a player, is the game over?

Even though 4.8.D says so, 5.4.H might cause confusion. :eek:
I think the "required number of players" in 5.4.H would be interpreted as the number in the batting order. :cool:


Edit:
And also in "4.1.D.2.a & Exception" as IM said.

Dakota Tue Jul 25, 2017 02:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by teebob21 (Post 1008116)
Yes. This was hammered home at the coaches' meeting this year. Not one of my pool play games batted the entire roster. I guess they didn't want to give up their courtesy runners or risk an EJ causing a forfeit. :D

IOW, if you insist on a bat the roster rule, we'll add one (but since we don't like this idea, it will be so inflexible and punitive that no one will actually use it).

CecilOne Tue Jul 25, 2017 07:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by teebob21 (Post 1008116)
Yes. This was hammered home at the coaches' meeting this year. Not one of my pool play games batted the entire roster. I guess they didn't want to give up their courtesy runners or risk an EJ causing a forfeit. :D

I see it used all the time. Probably realize the players behave. :cool:

IRISHMAFIA Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 1008123)
Even though 4.8.D says so, 5.4.H might cause confusion. :eek:
I think the "required number of players" in 5.4.H would be interpreted as the number in the batting order. :cool:


Edit:
And also in "4.1.D.2.a & Exception" as IM said.

No confusion here. The shorthanded rule is in itself an exception to the minimum number of players required in 4.1.C and in all cases, does not apply if any shortage is created due to a player being ejected.

Dakota Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:47am

A reasonable bat the roster rule should start with the intent of the rule; for example to allow everyone to participate in the game during pool play.

IMO, if you disagree that this intent should even be accommodated, you should oppose the rule in its entirety, not handicap it with other aspects of the lineup rules that would frustrate the intent of the rule itself.

Tru_in_Blu Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 1008176)
A reasonable bat the roster rule should start with the intent of the rule; for example to allow everyone to participate in the game during pool play.

IMO, if you disagree that this intent should even be accommodated, you should oppose the rule in its entirety, not handicap it with other aspects of the lineup rules that would frustrate the intent of the rule itself.

And, for example, if it's a tie game in the 7th inning with 2 outs, the winning run on third, and the 15th batter coming up to bat who has a .056 batting average, do you allow the team at bat to claim that that batter has a headache and can't bat, so you get to put your lead-off batter up? Without penalty?

Some rules must remain to maintain the integrity of the game. Coaches (and people like me :rolleyes:) would use any way possible to gain some type of advantage (within the rules, of course).

Dakota Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu (Post 1008177)
And, for example, if it's a tie game in the 7th inning with 2 outs, the winning run on third, and the 15th batter coming up to bat who has a .056 batting average, do you allow the team at bat to claim that that batter has a headache and can't bat, so you get to put your lead-off batter up? Without penalty?

Some rules must remain to maintain the integrity of the game. Coaches (and people like me :rolleyes:) would use any way possible to gain some type of advantage (within the rules, of course).

Where did you get that out of what I posted?

Tru_in_Blu Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 1008178)
Where did you get that out of what I posted?

With this statement:

not handicap it with other aspects of the lineup rules that would frustrate the intent of the rule itself


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1