Batting the entire roster
 

In USA pool play, teams are allowed the option to bat up to and including all roster players present.

A question came up tonight about if the lineup had to list the 9 defensive players first, and then "extra hitters", if you will, or simply disperse 9 defenders through a lineup of, say 15 hitters.

Found this from the July 2015 Plays and Clarifications:

• When using a DP/FLEX: If a team uses the DP/FLEX rule the flex will still be listed at the end of the batting order. If a team decides to bat the FLEX they may do so. However, the FLEX may only bat for the DP in the DP’s batting position. Then DP would be then considered out of the game and may re-enter one time. EXAMPLE: A team is batting 12 and using the DP/FLEX. They would list their 12 batters with the DP being in one of the first nine positions and the FLEX listed in the 13th spot.

That would seem to favor the argument that the 9 defensive positions would have to be listed first. But the rule gives no hint of that.

Also, once lineups are official at the plate conference, couldn't the coach just move a bunch of players around defensively as well as to/from "bench"?

Then, also found this from March 2015 Plays & Clarifications:

• The first nine players listed on the line-up card must be the starters on defense and must have their defensive position listed with the exception of the DP/FLEX. The DP must be one of the first nine players and the FLEX must be listed last on the line-up card.

And also this:

• Defensive Substitutes: Players not listed as a starting player or DP/FLEX, first 9 spot in the batting order, may be used as a substitute on defense. The batting order will not be changed and the Re-Entry Rule would still be in effect. EXAMPLE: Batter number 11 goes in to play defense at shortstop for batter 3. Batter 11 has now entered the game and batter 3 has left the game. They still bat in the 3 and 11 positions as they originally did. Re-entry rule still in effect

Wow, very confusing.

As above:

"The first nine players listed on the line-up card must be the starters on defense and must have their defensive position listed"

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?

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

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.

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.

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? :o :eek: :)

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.

That explains a lot.

Exactly.

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

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.

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.

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. :eek:

Along with lots of other things, but the problem is lack of communication to umpires. :eek:

Hush, Irish. :rolleyes: No rants!

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.

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.

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. :D

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.

Yes, down to a minimum of 8 BATTERS.

That would be through any reason other than ejection. It is clearly stated in 4.1.D.2.a & Exception

Even though 4.8.D says so, 5.4.H might cause confusion. :eek:
I think the "required number of players" in 5.4.H would be interpreted as the number in the batting order. :cool:


Edit:
And also in "4.1.D.2.a & Exception" as IM said.

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).

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

No confusion here. The shorthanded rule is in itself an exception to the minimum number of players required in 4.1.C and in all cases, does not apply if any shortage is created due to a player being ejected.

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 :rolleyes:) 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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pretty observant for an umpire :) j/k

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

So, two teams are playing pool play in a national. Both teams decide to put 12 players in the batting order. Team A has 14 players at the game, so they have two subs on the bench. Team Z only has 12 players, so they have no subs.

During the game, there's a play at the plate, and the runner for Team A comes in standing and maliciously crashes into Team Z's catcher. The catcher gets up off the ground and retaliates by cold-cocking the runner upside the helmet with her mitt and the ball in it, knocking her to the ground. After order is restored, the PU ejects Team A's runner and Team Z's catcher.

So as I understand it now, Team Z has to forfeit because they have no subs to replace the catcher, even though they still have 11 players remaining on site? But Team A is good to go, even though their runner started the problem with her malicious act? Is that really what ASA/USA intended when it allowed teams to bat more than nine for pool play?

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.

;)

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.

So, if they bat 14, it takes six ejections before the game is forfeited? No thanks.

No, you read that backwards (or I worded it confusingly). The "below 9" was to account for the team that was "batting the roster" with only 9 players to begin with... yes, I've seen it. They do it so they can still have a CR! Forfeit after the 2nd ejection would be an adjustment more like I had in mind.

Besides, with a roster of 14 and a standard lineup, it would also take 6 ejections for a forfeit, right?

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

As far as continuing shorthanded after an ejection; I'd almost prefer, any ejection = forfeit, regardless of subs. :rolleyes:
THIS IS FACETIOUS !!!

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.

OK, not enough emotis, so I added a comment. ;) ;) :) :) :rolleyes: :p :p :p

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.