Boys 11-12 At Lucasville

[burgball2132]

Kudos to Blindwhiteheat. That's exactly right!

[BlindWhiteHat]

The rules state that if a team doesn't play all its players for the minimum amount of time it MAY result in a forfeiture of the game. It was certainly a violation of the rules. Little League International has the right to rule on the protest as it sees fit.

Central Region was called when Wheelersburg protested and they decided to uphold the protest and then decided on the punishment. It was not a decision that was made on a local level.

I know in the past, teams were forced to forfeit wins in these cases. It appears now that LL has chosen to soften the punishment. I disagree with this stance. I don't feel the punishment fits the crime. I also don't think a two game suspension for the manager is enough of a deterent to keep it from happening. I would think there would be a manager in the future to intentionally violate this rule in hopes of winning a game knowing the only punishment is a suspension for him while his team advances in the tournament.

[gogrove9]

I agree with you, there will always be at least one person to find a loophole and exploit it. The punishment should be the same for everyone and the rules should state specifically instead of being wishy washy and saying may when it should say WILL, no excuses. Either you are going to have rules that need to be followed or you don't.

[baseball!]

The rule actually states that if minimum play requirements are not met that the manager will be suspended for two games and that additional penalties may be assessed IF in the opinion of the tournament committee one of 3 things occurred: 1. action occurred that resulted in making a travesty of the game (did not happen)
2. this was a second offense (not the case)
3. the manager willfully disregarded the requirement (obviously the tournament committee determined that it was not a willfull disregard of the rule considering the boy in question played in two defensive halves of innings and one offensive half and just did not get to bat)
That means the proper penalty to assess per the rule book is a two game suspension for the manager. If it should happen again willfull or not they would forfeit the game.

[gogrove9]

Thank you for the clarification on the rules. Then they were followed and there should be no problem. The problem arises when there are no specifics. It sounds like this situation was covered completely. Thanks again.

[BlindWhiteHat]

The 3rd stipulation is the one that I have a problem with. Did the manager WILLFULLY place that player in a spot in the lineup that didn't guarantee him a time at bat before the game ended? YES! Therefore, he willfully disregarded the rule. I'm sure he could have substituted that player for another player in a different spot in the lineup but he may have had to take out a better player. That makes it a WILLFUL act in my opinion.

The only exception that should be made, in my opinion is if a team did not make it through their lineup two complete times. I would consider that a situation that could not be forseen by the manager. If the team made it through the lineup at least two times (and I'd assume that happened based on the number of runs scored) the manager could have gotten that player a time at bat but instead chose to make substitutions based on strategy instead of with an emphasis on following the rules.

If I find out that this team didn't make it through its lineup two complete times, I will change my opinion on this. If not, I still maintain that the offending team should have been made to forfeit the win.

[softball10]

Like I said earlier, the samething happenend last year at SP and Porstmouth's coach was suspended. It was the same situation, why should it be any different this year? I don't remember people having such a problem with it then, why now? Because Wheelersburg lost? or what? As said earlier, that is little league rules. Everyone says go by the rules and it's not like a local person decided this, it was the tournament committee from Williamsport. The rules issue goes on both sides, if you come out on top, it's a good rule, if it goes against you, then it's wrong!!! That is why I'm glad it had to come from Williamsport. It seems to me, that little league has a "warning" first in most all things and then your done after that, it seems they are using it in this situation also.

[Riverrat Tiger]

1st and foremost, I believe the mandatory rule play hurts Little League. I have always thought that for this reason. Every team could carry 14 players, but with this rule, nobody carries 14, in fact usually they carry 12 or less. So just taking Ironton, we have usually 7 all-star teams. If you cut the number of kids by 2 on each team, that is 14 kids that don't get to play extended ball, whether it be just practicing or traveling. Now take the 14 or so leagues we have in District 11, now we are talking close to 200 kids. So being all about the kids, we just forgot about almost 200 kids just in Scioto and Lawrence Co. As I've always said, the rule looks good, but in actuality, it's horrible.

Since the rule is there, the National Little League should at least enforce it. Giving the manager a 2 game suspension is just a way out. IMO, the team that follows the rule is getting part of this punishment. For instance, the team that follows the rule and gets their kids in, could have substituted for a kid that could have hit a 3-run homer for a kid that may not be as good.

As far as the South Point/Wheelersburg Game, the decision has been made. My questions would now be, how in the world could you score 8 runs and not get everyone to bat? Maybe South Point has 14 kids on their roster? 8 solo Home Runs scattered over 5 innings?

[BlindWhiteHat]

I don't remember people having such a problem with it then, why now? Because Wheelersburg lost? or what? .

My concern has nothing to do with the teams involved in this particular game. I just want to see people involved in LL baseball/softball who follow the rules.

Everyone says go by the rules and it's not like a local person decided this, it was the tournament committee from Williamsport. .

Exactly, go by the rules. It just doesn't make sense that a team who doesn't follow the rules and gets caught should win over a team who seemed to follow the rules.

The rules issue goes on both sides, if you come out on top, it's a good rule, if it goes against you, then it's wrong!!! That is why I'm glad it had to come from Williamsport. It seems to me, that little league has a "warning" first in most all things and then your done after that, it seems they are using it in this situation also.

I don't judge a rule based on what it can do for me or my league. Again, I don't care about the teams involved, I just think the punishment for this infraction is a slap on the wrist. It seems everyone is able to look at this from the SP side saying "don't punish the kids" but no one has looked at this from the Wheelersburg side. They lost a game because someone (in affect) cheated. Was it done on purpose? Maybe not but it still will affect Wheelersburg's chances of advancing in this tournament.

I find it a problem that Little League seems so willing to "warn" when infractions are noted. It sends a poor message to those who strive to do things the right way in the first place.

[Peanut]

Managers/coaches/little league, whoever, these people are volunteers and yes they make a mistake. Did this one error cause Wheelersburg to lose the game? Absolutely not!! SP never was behind the whole game and on this given day was the better team. Wheelersburg is a good team, but they were not the better last night. Had the Burg been the better team maybe I would agree that one kids at bat would of changed the whole complexity of the game, it did not. I went to the rule book and read it and Williamsport did exactly that. I don't always agree with what little league does, but the rule book is there for a reason and the tournament committee agreed that the manager did not willfully change the game.

[baseball!]

The Wheelersburg kids are not being punished by South Point not following the rules. They lost by 3 runs. If the child that did not get his at bat had been in earlier at any point and struck out at his at bat SP would still have won the ballgame. Do you really want to win on a technicallity. Blindwhitehat even said that it was probably not on purpose but he wants to go by the rules. The rules are that the punishment for misjudging when a susbstitiution is going to need to be made in order to get minimum play requirements in is a 2 game suspension of the manager not an automatic forfeit unless it is willfull or in other words on purpose and even then a forfeit is just a possibility. If a team was previously treated any different I would say that different circustances were in play. Perhaps the player was never even put into the game at all or something of the sort.

[Stryker]

Minford vs Chesapeake tonite at 5:30, winner plays Rock Hill on July 3 at 5:30, the loser play the winner of Fairland and Green July 3 at 5:30

[BlindWhiteHat]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the rules were applied properly in this case. I just think the rule sucks. I don't think the Wheelersburg kids got justice in this case. I'm sure the SP kids played hard and could have been the better team on this night but their manager did not follow the rules, period. Being able to keep the win and advance does not seem the correct ruling. I know that's what the rule says, again, I think the rule sucks.

I am a little shocked at how most on here are quick to defend a team who was caught not following the rules. A few years ago, a basketball team won a state championship but had it taken away because they didn't have all the proper paperwork on a transfer. That team was blistered on here for not following the rules and most felt they got what they deserved. In this case, a manager did not follow rules during a game and everyone makes excuses as to why it wasn't a big deal and should be dismissed with a slap on the wrist. According to posters on here, the coach didn't fail to play a player the minimum amount of time. He "misjudged when a substitution is going to need to be made in order to get minimum play requirements." You can word it however you want but it's the same thing.

The other point that is missed is what could have happened if Wheelersburg had done the same thing. Isn't it possible that they could have made less errors or scored more runs if some of their subs didn't play?

[Stryker]

where is the 11-12 boys state tournament at

[wemufans]

My bracket says 7/25 in District 3 whereever that is. I would guess up north since District 11 is ins SE Ohio.

[oldtrojan]

where is the 11-12 boys state tournament at

Tallmadge

[ccw]

The kid who didn't get to bat in the bottom of the 6th is a great player. He hit .408 during the regular season and was very consistent in helping his team win the regular season. The kid who he replaced had a lower regular season batting average and if you watched the game you would know he struggled during the game. It was to SPs advantage to have the sub in to bat. When the coach put him in in the top of the 4th inning, he could not have known that the Burg would have played so well that his team would take two innings to bat around in the line up. Besides, I am sure that the Pointers would have happily played the bottom of the 6th inning to allow this kid to bat. He would have hit, the number 2 batter would have hit and then the big sticks that followed would have batted and possibly hit more HRs (these were the same 3 who hit homeruns during the game). I noticed that the Burg players were the first ones to line up to shake hands at the end of the top of the 6th inning (right after the said kid caught a fly ball in center field).

[2ndchance]

Any results on tonights games ?

[pantherdad]

'Peake 5, Minford 2

Lester pitched complete game for the Panthers. Minford threatened in the bottom of the sixth, tying run at the plate, but a long fly to left was caught by Eddy for the final out. Bias had a good game at short and some clutch hits. Minford has some big kids, so the Panthers were very excited with the win.

Good luck, Falcons. We've seen you guys the last couple of years, and we've had some great games.

'Peake vs. The Hill, Friday July 3 @ 5:30

[sportsfan43]

The kid who didn't get to bat in the bottom of the 6th is a great player. He hit .408 during the regular season and was very consistent in helping his team win the regular season. The kid who he replaced had a lower regular season batting average and if you watched the game you would know he struggled during the game. It was to SPs advantage to have the sub in to bat. When the coach put him in in the top of the 4th inning, he could not have known that the Burg would have played so well that his team would take two innings to bat around in the line up. Besides, I am sure that the Pointers would have happily played the bottom of the 6th inning to allow this kid to bat. He would have hit, the number 2 batter would have hit and then the big sticks that followed would have batted and possibly hit more HRs (these were the same 3 who hit homeruns during the game). I noticed that the Burg players were the first ones to line up to shake hands at the end of the top of the 6th inning (right after the said kid caught a fly ball in center field).

so in other words, the south point coach thought he could beat burg without his best players on the field?