I wasn't intended as a blanket statement. I was referring to the definition of "shorthanded."

How is that different than going shorthanded at the ninth batter in a regular lineup?

I thought Dakota was saying that some of the other line-up rules shouldn't matter, i.e., like the shorthanded rule. If you had the rule in place, it wouldn't matter one whit. But if the rules were a little looser, coaches might try to take advantage, even under the premise of letting everyone play. Because wins are more important to some folks.

Not that they shouldn't matter, but that they should be adjusted in light of the intent of the rule.

Then why even call it a game or keep score? Just line everyone on the foul lines and hand them a participation trophy. After all, THAT is the intent of the rule.

Clearly, you oppose the rule entirely. Fine. Get rid of the rule.

But, if it is going to be there, make it actually useful for its purpose.

I've waited this long to comment here, but here we go.

I don't have a problem with this rule or its recent interpretations. Assume the following: all other rules are still in effect, but (in pool play) you can bat as many as you'd like, up to the entire roster.

With that in mind, I don't find the rule punitive, limiting, or restrictive. List the top 9 as defenders, whether they actually will be or not. The FLEX is only advantageous in this situation if you have a player who wants to play defense but not hit....usually a pitcher. Put her 14th in the lineup with 13 hitters. Want to courtesy run? OK, that girl can't be in the starting lineup as a hitter (like always). Batting all 20 players and forfeiting due to ejection is, by existing rule, no different than showing up with 9 and forfeiting due to EJ: dropping below the minimum amount of batters (as submitted on the lineup card whether it be 9 or 99) due to ejection is a forfeit.

I can't speak to the purpose of the rule as written, but as to its effect, I don't have any problem with it.

Pretty observant for an umpire :) j/k

The purpose is participation which IMO has no place in championship play

So, two teams are playing pool play in a national. Both teams decide to put 12 players in the batting order. Team A has 14 players at the game, so they have two subs on the bench. Team Z only has 12 players, so they have no subs.

During the game, there's a play at the plate, and the runner for Team A comes in standing and maliciously crashes into Team Z's catcher. The catcher gets up off the ground and retaliates by cold-cocking the runner upside the helmet with her mitt and the ball in it, knocking her to the ground. After order is restored, the PU ejects Team A's runner and Team Z's catcher.

So as I understand it now, Team Z has to forfeit because they have no subs to replace the catcher, even though they still have 11 players remaining on site? But Team A is good to go, even though their runner started the problem with her malicious act? Is that really what ASA/USA intended when it allowed teams to bat more than nine for pool play?

Technically, it isn't championship play, it is pool play. The records of pool play do not determine seeding (at least the last time I was at the GOLD). There way a blind draw for the brackets after pool play. These are extra game, dare I say "exposure games."

At the JO Cup (circa 2017), pool play is open batting order, no line up cards are kept. A coach could send the same person up to bat every inning.

Too much fuss about nothing. When bracket play starts, we are back to championship rules.

;)

Other than toss the rule entirely (which I am OK with, BTW), there are only a couple of adjustments that should be made so the rule truly serves its intent.

1. The shorthanded rule is already a modification of the lineup rules, so adjusting it to be consistent with the intent of the bat-the-roster rule is not vastly violating the game further beyond what bat-the-roster does in the first place. Change it so a single ejection does not result if a forfeit (unless this would drop the batting order below 9). Leave the rest the same, including taking an out for an injured player, etc.
   
2. For courtesy runners, again, the CR rule is itself an adjustment to the sub/re-entry rules, so again, adjusting it to be consistent with the intent of the bat-the-roster rule is not vastly violating the game further. The purpose of the CR rule is to avoid delay and perhaps prevent exposure to possible injury for the pitcher. Is this purpose still valid in bat-the-roster? If so, some simple adjustment can be made. I've seen a couple of ways of doing this in "friendly" tournaments, and the most popular is use the last player who was put out as the CR.

All of this is a "violation" to the purity of the 19th century rules, but so what? The ASA/USA rule book said so-long to that notion long ago.

So, if they bat 14, it takes six ejections before the game is forfeited? No thanks.

No, you read that backwards (or I worded it confusingly). The "below 9" was to account for the team that was "batting the roster" with only 9 players to begin with... yes, I've seen it. They do it so they can still have a CR! Forfeit after the 2nd ejection would be an adjustment more like I had in mind.

Besides, with a roster of 14 and a standard lineup, it would also take 6 ejections for a forfeit, right?

Why are some of you wanting ejection violations to be acceptable? :eek: :eek: :(

As far as continuing shorthanded after an ejection; I\'d almost prefer, any ejection = forfeit, regardless of subs. :rolleyes:
THIS IS FACETIOUS !!!