Batting the entire roster

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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 ) would use any way possible to gain some type of advantage (within the rules, of course).

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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 ) 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]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

With this statement:

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

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

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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 ) would use any way possible to gain some type of advantage (within the rules, of course).

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

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I thought Dakota was saying that some of the other line-up rules shouldn't matter, i.e., like the shorthanded rule...

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

Pretty observant for an umpire j/k

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

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