Batting the entire roster

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Why should an ejection ever be "excused"? You have a coach not smart enough to manage his/her team or line-up. And assuming we are not talking about an umpire who seeks out reasons to eject kids, something terribly wrong occurred to cause the umpire to eject a player.

Where does ignoring the penalties for such action help, improve or promote the game of softball? Is there any reason at all to perpetuate poor sportsmanship by massaging the rules that much more than they have been already?

BTW, I believe the first "official" rules of softball were published in 1932 for ASA.

I didn't suggest that an ejection be "excused". Ejections already come with a severe enough penalty, where the player is removed from the game for all intents and purposes.

It just seems counter-intuitive that an ejection should result in an automatic forfeit when a team elects to bat their entire roster as allowed by the rules. What is the purpose of the bat-the-roster option other than to allow all players the opportunity to participate in the game offensively and showcase their talents as hitters. As an umpire, I have no dog in that fight. Let them showcase players all they want; why should that bother us?

So a coach opts to do that, but then runs the risk of having a game forfeited if one of his/her players gets a little too aggressive? That just doesn't meet the common sense test, particularly when the other team that only bats nine of its 14 players can have five ejections but continue to play.

[CecilOne]

It is really a simple rule, an ejected player requires a sub, immediately.

Now that USA pool play allows extra players for their benefit; no different.
Regardless of how many are in the lineup, same rule.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

It is really a simple rule, an ejected player requires a sub, immediately.

Now that USA pool play allows extra players for their benefit; no different.
Regardless of how many are in the lineup, same rule.

Which is a rule that needs to be adjusted if you are serious about a bat-the-roster rule.

Of course, if you are only begrudgingly putting a rule in the book to pretend to have a bat-the-roster rule, fine. Make it as legalistic as possible. Maybe the whole thing will go away. Along with the teams that want a bat-the-roster rule, perhaps.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Which is a rule that needs to be adjusted if you are serious about a bat-the-roster rule.

Of course, if you are only begrudgingly putting a rule in the book to pretend to have a bat-the-roster rule, fine. Make it as legalistic as possible. Maybe the whole thing will go away. Along with the teams that want a bat-the-roster rule, perhaps.

I think you realize that I am commenting on the rule, regardless of the game management philosophy involved; or the need to expand participation.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So a coach opts to do that, but then (A) runs the risk of having a game forfeited if one of his/her players gets a little too aggressive?
That just doesn't meet the common sense test, particularly when the other team that only bats nine of its 14 players (B) can have five ejections but continue to play.

A) A coach who bats all and can't manage behavior, their fault.

B) A coach who has blatantly UC players, might hold onto subs just to cover ejections, but disgusting as that is, within the rules.

IOW, live with the rules as written. A couple members of this forum have repeatedly proven that rule changes that make sense don't always make it.


I don't think it distorts my view of the actual rules that I have almost no ejections of players, both for crashing a catcher. Only two others came close.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It just seems counter-intuitive that an ejection should result in an automatic forfeit when a team elects to bat their entire roster as allowed by the rules.

See my last 2 posts.

Also, clarification/adjustment of these rules might be needed (in the book); but allowing multiple ejections without subs, essentially shorthanded, is not.
The shorthanded rule has always excluded ejections; because they reflect serious situations. Shorthanded was invented to avoid small roster teams forfeiting for injuries or family emergencies.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

See my last 2 posts.

Also, clarification/adjustment of these rules might be needed (in the book); but allowing multiple ejections without subs, essentially shorthanded, is not.
The shorthanded rule has always excluded ejections; because they reflect serious situations. Shorthanded was invented to avoid small roster teams forfeiting for injuries or family emergencies.

People tend to forget that the shorthanded rule hasn't been around that long. If there were no subs and you need to fill a slot, the game was over regardless of the reason. You know, back when the game was played for the purpose of competition.

It is like dealing with children with little discipline. Give them one thing, they want another and then another one of those, and then something bigger, then something the kid next store doesn't have, etc., etc., etc...... and they pout and whine and cry until they get what they want.