Batting the entire roster

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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

As far as continuing shorthanded after an ejection; I'd almost prefer, any ejection = forfeit, regardless of subs.

Ejections are not acceptable, but they are not an automatic forfeit, either, nor should they be IMO.

Bat-the-roster stretches many of the lineup rules to the point of mostly irrelevancy. Attempting to maintain the related rules in a strict and literal fashion is silly, IMO, and merely makes USA appear legalistic.

If you're going to have an "everybody plays" rule, have an "everybody plays" rule. It is a simple concept. Treat it like one.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Ejections are not acceptable, but they are not an automatic forfeit, either, nor should they be IMO.

OK, not enough emotis, so I added a comment.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

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.

I believe it is. Any play which can lead to a national title is championship play. The pool play is required to advance to the double elimination and sets up teams for the draw for seeding That's why they keep score and play by the rules.

JO Cup is not championship play since it leads to nowhere

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

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.

[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 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 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

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.

[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.