Batting the entire roster

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

When it passed, it wasn't the first time it had been proposed.

As I've noted before, it is a bullshit rule that is there to allow teams to make more money. This way they can justify the financial demands and point to Little Susie on the field during these games and tell the parents, "we told you she would play". At the same time they wouldn't even consider Lil' Susie for a game that has any value attached unless they ran out of players.

The "showcase" mentality is, IMO, getting close to the level of absurdity if it is not already there. These teams play enough friendlies and college showcases, there is no reason to turn Championship Play into another.

What showcases there are in today's world are more for coaches to see a predetermined line-up of players. Kids get recruited because they (or their parents) sell themselves through letters, e-mails, video and stats. From what I understand, (at the upper collegiate levels) it is a rare occasion that a player is directly recruited from "being seen" during a tournament. I understand that it happens, but not as much as these teams sell to the parents on the importance of "being seen". Lil' Susie will not get recruited by being seen in pool play. Good possibility she will not even be "seen" unless she accidentally crushes a 300' grand slam while a coach is sitting there to look at another player. And even then, the coach is going to talk to the coach who will not play her before anyone else.

Then again, many of these rules get by because of the fear of competition.

IMO, you need to keep all other rules intact. Umpires have difficulty handling some of the substitution and shorthanded rules as it is, can you imagine when you have a couple sets of these rules?

[Manny A]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the issue. I just umpired in a weekend "world series" tournament where the TD allowed teams to bat up to 11 players. When a head coach handed me his/her line-up card at the plate, and it showed 11 players in the batting order with no subs, I really couldn't care less who was playing defense except for the pitcher and catcher, since we also had a rule that allowed for "courtesy" runners (either the last batter who made an out, or a substitute not in the line-up). The opposing coach really didn't care, either.

During the game, EHs went in to play defense for starters, and then those starters came in to play defense for other starters. Why should that matter? As long as the batting order stayed the same, what difference did it make which nine players were actually playing defense at the time?

There was at times a team with, say, 14 players on the roster. The head coach would list 11 players in the batting order and 3 subs. When he/she wanted to enter one of those subs, he/she was required to announce the substitute's position in the batting order. Whether that sub came in as a new EH or a defensive position player, what difference did it make?

Maybe I'm not seeing the forest through the trees, but I don't see the big deal here.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the issue. I just umpired in a weekend "world series" tournament where the TD allowed teams to bat up to 11 players. When a head coach handed me his/her line-up card at the plate, and it showed 11 players in the batting order with no subs, I really couldn't care less who was playing defense except for the pitcher and catcher, since we also had a rule that allowed for "courtesy" runners (either the last batter who made an out, or a substitute not in the line-up). The opposing coach really didn't care, either.

During the game, EHs went in to play defense for starters, and then those starters came in to play defense for other starters. Why should that matter? As long as the batting order stayed the same, what difference did it make which nine players were actually playing defense at the time?

There was at times a team with, say, 14 players on the roster. The head coach would list 11 players in the batting order and 3 subs. When he/she wanted to enter one of those subs, he/she was required to announce the substitute's position in the batting order. Whether that sub came in as a new EH or a defensive position player, what difference did it make?

Maybe I'm not seeing the forest through the trees, but I don't see the big deal here.

In your case, you had a TD lay out the rules for how line-ups could/would be managed. It included some specificity. The big deal (at least to me) is that the current USA rule is void of specificity.

We also did a tournament this past weekend and we were told we were using strict USA rules. Coaches had all different kinds of interpretations of how to "bat the entire order". The reason for posting this note in the first place was around a question of where EPs could appear in the batting order. The USA rule does not specify that but various Rules & Clarifications offered opinions or interpretations of that, saying the first 9 players listed must be on defense. And things got sillier from there.

Coaches submitting line-up cards had varying interpretations of how things should work and while that's not uncommon at all, the lack of common sense regarding this "rule" is befuddling, at the least.

I asked our UIC and several umpires with years of experience and found a lot of different opinions. And that's a problem with something that should be quite simple.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...The rule was proposed by a Council Member who did not even support the rule...

That explains a lot.

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

...the lack of common sense regarding this "rule" is befuddling, at the least.

I asked our UIC and several umpires with years of experience and found a lot of different opinions. And that's a problem with something that should be quite simple.

Exactly.

[Manny A]

Okay, I went to the July 2015 Plays and Clarifications, and it says this:

STARTING LINE-UP:

A. The first nine players listed will have their number and defensive position listed on the line-up card with the exception of the DP (if used), who will just be listed as “DP”. (i.e. Steve Roscia, #12 LF)

B. Those who will be listed next will be listed as “EP” (Extra Player), and will be governed by the Extra Player Rule. (Rule 4, Section 4 A-D). They will hit and will [be] eligible to play defense. Note* “Any nine can play defense when not using a flex or have dropped down from using a flex” and any eight can play defense when using a flex.

C. If the DP/Flex is used, the Flex will be listed LAST on the line-up card immediately following the final “EP”. All other provisions of the DP/Flex Rule, (Rule 4, Section 3 A-I), will be in effect.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, now that I've read that. The lineup given to the PU at the plate conference must list nine defensive players (or eight defensive players and the DP if the DP/FLEX option is being used) in the first nine slots in the order, followed by any EPs that the coach wants to add to the order (and, at the very end, the FLEX as the ninth defensive player if the option is exercised). There is no "sprinkling" of the EPs in the batting order at the start of the game.

After the lineups are made official, who cares what happens then? There is no requirement to announce defensive position changes amongst the starters, and when an EP comes in on defense for someone in the starting nine, that's not considered a substitution because of this little tidbit in the Plays and Clarifications.

D. The only players that are allowed to be a substitute, (i.e. pitch run, pitch hit), for anyone in the starting line-up are those players who are not listed in the starting line-up but listed as substitutes on that same line-up card. The Re-Entry and Substitution Rules will apply. (Rule 6, Section 5 A-C – Re-entry) and (Rule 4, Section 6 A-F – Substitutes and Illegal Player)

So if right after the plate conference, the coach wants to put a starting EP into center field, and make the starting center fielder an EP, no harm, no foul.

[CecilOne]

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.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

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]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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

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.

It should be noted that the NUS or Umpire Council do not have the authority to change rules, simply offer interpretation. For that matter, the NUS only has the number of votes as there are regions (I believe it was 15 at that time).

What interpretations developed must still fall within the limit of the rules. There is a process for an emergency ballot should there be unforeseen shortcomings or unexpected ramifications of a rule change.

Then again, it has been two years and there hasn't been any major adjustments, so I guess the council is satisfied with the way it is presently written.