7 run rule

BratzCoach · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Jun 22, 2003, 02:17pm

I coach a Pixie (9 & under) girls team. My prior experience has been entirely baseball, so I'm still learning lots of things.

The league we play in uses a 7 run rule. In the prior baseball leagues I've had experience with, this meant that after the play completed on which the 7th run was scored the inning was over, and only 7 runs were counted. I was surprised to find out that in this league, they count any runners who cross the plate on the play, thereby making it possible to score as many as 10 runs in the inning.

Which way is more common? I'm just looking for feedback.

pollywolly60 · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Jun 22, 2003, 03:23pm

In every league that I have called, whenever a per inning run rule is in effect, only the allowed number would count (seven in your case), no matter how many crossed the plate.

Dakota · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Jun 22, 2003, 07:36pm

Same here. The limit is the limit.

IHSAIllini · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 23, 2003, 12:08pm

Likewise. Though that's canceled in the last inning.

I have heard of leagues that do it where any that score on the play count. But in my experience, which is somewhat geographically limited, they are few and far in between.

Skahtboi · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 23, 2003, 01:21pm

Ditto! Limit is the limit. Why else have a limit? It becomes a rule of thumb, but not a true limit.

Andy · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 23, 2003, 01:26pm

My experience in this area has been the opposite of the majority. Most of per-inning run limit games I work allow "continuation" or any runs that score beyond the limit as a result of the play that scores the limit run stand.

So if there is a 7 run limit, 6 runs are in and the bases are loaded, a grand slam would result in 10 runs scored in that half-inning.

Elaine "Lady Blue" · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 23, 2003, 03:56pm

Andy's right, I used to be the UIC of a Rec league that used "continuation" with a 5 run per inning limit on TBall and PeeWee. It was hard to explain to the coaches and parents how it worked, so I tended to explain it at every pre-game meeting at the plate until the coach got the gist of it. I thought it was a fair rule. I hated leagues that had just a straight run rule because it never failed that bases would have 2-3 runners and say 3 runs had already scored in the inning. If a little girl got hold of one and belted it to the OF, I had to stop all play once 2 runners crossed the plate. The BR was ALWAYS confused and many cried! After all, they were 5-8 years of age!! Let 'em run and score, I say!

BratzCoach · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Jun 23, 2003, 09:06pm

The league I'm in uses a 7 run per inning limit, with a 10 run mercy rule after the 5th inning. Games are 7 innings, or 2hrs--whichever comes first.

It was always my understanding that the spirit of this rule is to save time in games and keep them moving, but also to remain fair to both teams. It has been my experience in playing other places around the greater St. Louis area that the inning ends after the play is completed on which the 7th run is scored, but that only 7 runs are counted. Play does NOT come to a halt after the 7th run scores.

The league I'm in now seems to interpret this rule as meaning that all runners who score on the play are counted, thus making it possible to score 10 runs in an inning.

This is inherently unfair, and also invites strategy that would prolong innings, and therefore games.

Example 1: In the last inning of a tie game, the visiting team scores the 7th run, and has their inning stopped. Then the home team gets the bases loaded with 6 runs across the plate, and the batter hits a base clearing double. This is unfair to the visiting team.

Example 2: Team XYZ gets a runner (A) to 3rd base with no one out, and 6 runs across the plate. The next batter (B) hits a single, but the coach holds A at 3rd. The next batter (C) hits what could be a double, but the coach is again holding the runners, so that B advances only to 2nd base, and D only gets to 1st. Now the coach has created an opportunity to score ten runs. Since the inning ends after play is completed all that is necessary is for the runners to keep going no matter where the ball is hit or thrown and try to get as many runs across the plate as they can. Rather than the inning ending after B hits a single, the inning has been extended by batters C and D, and possibly batters E, F, and G. This is 2 to 5 additional batters, possibly every half inning.

Example 3: Team A is down by 10 runs at the start of the last inning, and due to the 10 run Mercy Rule they are declared the losers without being given an opportunity to bat. If it is possible for team A s to score 10 runs, then it is inherently unfair to call the game due to the Mercy Rule.

I do realize that the 2nd example would be taking a risk on the coaches part, but that is part of baseball/softball.

So far it looks like a split decision on how common this interpretation is.

Dakota · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Jun 24, 2003, 12:48am

Quote:

Originally posted by Elaine "Lady Blue"
I hated leagues that had just a straight run rule because it never failed that bases would have 2-3 runners and say 3 runs had already scored in the inning. If a little girl got hold of one and belted it to the OF, I had to stop all play once 2 runners crossed the plate.

Elaine,
I never stop the play - it's just that only 5 (or whatever) runs counted on the score card. Kids didn't need to know that, and the team's scorekeeper can record it anyway s/he wants for team statistics, etc.