Batting the entire roster

[Tru_in_Blu]

This business about a player entering the game and a batter that has left the game is not logical. To me, because everyone was in the batting line up, everyone IS in the game. And the comment about re-entry rule still being in effect is very confusing.

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.

I view batting the entire order as when slow pitch teams elect to include an EP (extra player). That player can appear anywhere in the lineup and can play defense for anyone else. See RS#18 for details on that. My contention is that that philosophy should apply to all the "EPs" in pool play JO games.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

This business about a player entering the game and a batter that has left the game is not logical. To me, because everyone was in the batting line up, everyone IS in the game. And the comment about re-entry rule still being in effect is very confusing.

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.

I view batting the entire order as when slow pitch teams elect to include an EP (extra player). That player can appear anywhere in the lineup and can play defense for anyone else. See RS#18 for details on that. My contention is that that philosophy should apply to all the "EPs" in pool play JO games.

Except this is a special rule for JO pool play.

To appease the parents? To compete with other alphabets?

[RKBUmp]

From what I have heard through the grapevine, yes the rule was made to both appease the parents and compete with the other alphabets. It was suppose to be a free substitution rule but didnt get worded that way. After the rule was passed, they started applying all the other rules in the book that made it a nightmare.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

From what I have heard through the grapevine, yes the rule was made to both appease the parents and compete with the other alphabets. It was suppose to be a free substitution rule but didnt get worded that way. After the rule was passed, they started applying all the other rules in the book that made it a nightmare.

It was a bullshit rule change to start. This is what happens when you try to mix money with logic

[Crabby_Bob]

IMHO, the July 2015 clarification supersedes the March 2015 clarification. You would think EPs would be allowed anywhere in the line-up (like slow-pitch) but the higher-ups want them listed starting in the 10th position and the Flex listed last. As already stated, the coach can designate players in the 10th position and lower for defense at any time after the line-up is accepted as official.

Head scratching moment: a tournament I worked used the March 2015 interpretation.

[Dakota]

ASA/USA bat the roster rule: How to take a simple concept and FUBAR it.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

ASA/USA bat the roster rule: How to take a simple concept and FUBAR it.

Here's the blow-by-blow as I understand it.

The rule was proposed by a Council Member who did not even support the rule, but submitted only what the coaches in that area requested. As a result, it was only worded to allow them the bat the roster, but no secondary rules that are typically associated with the concept as used in practice (standard at most/many showcases) were included. The intent was clear; allow coaches to showcase the entire roster in meaningless games, to include players that would have limited opportunity once the bracket play began, with as little limitation as deemed reasonable.

The NUS and Umpires Committee didn't like it, either. When it passed thru the National Council despite their opposition, it seems that, rather than attempt to implement what practically EVERYONE understood was desired, the staff showed their disdain for the rule by insisting to continue to enforce the rules that clearly contradict the intent.

The interpretations that followed, not being part of the actual rules, apparently aren't being noticed by the teams, either; so they aren't (yet) complaining to the point of generating new rules submissions. Instead, teams are just disgusted and disappointed, and repeating the mantra that USA/ASA still doesn't listen to what the constituency (teams, coaches, players) want. In some areas (Georgia is currently a great example), the teams are leaving (or minimizing) USA/ASA and being marketed strongly by the competition.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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.

Hush, Irish. No rants!

[IRISHMAFIA]

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]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by teebob21

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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by teebob21

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.

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]

Originally Posted by teebob21

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.

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

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.