|
Post by eckersley43 on Nov 23, 2012 17:39:40 GMT 10
Scam..the point about "time" wasn't in regard to the time it takes a pitcher to go to a fielding position..10 seconds?? The "time" is for the new pitcher to enter the field and have 8 pitches. That aspect of the rule (removal from pitching ) is not new..just the removal from the game aspect. On the point of Proxy Managers..it makes no difference in relation to visits, and also the "real manager "can't approach the umpires..only the named manager on the team sheet.Hope the guy who fronts Tribunals and faces ejection is happy in his role! Reminds of me of ancient times when the rich had a designated "whipping boy" to collect their punishments..and about the same level of ethics.
|
|
|
Post by The Puma on Nov 23, 2012 18:07:36 GMT 10
Never seen anyone, manager included in any form of the sport confer with the pitcher for several minutes. The problem with most rules is the infer common sense is used, unfortunately common sense isn't always that common.
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Nov 23, 2012 20:22:11 GMT 10
The "several minutes" was from the call of time, to the resumption of play. If there were unlimited visits in grades with the 5 minute rule, it could be abused, just as if non manager discussions weren't charged with a visit. The controversial aspect of the rules on visits is the removal of the pitcher from the game on 2nd in an innings.Never seen tactics to wind down the clock with the 5 minute rule in play Puma? As for common sense, go figure the "unofficial"manager who sets up his fall guy in case there is an ejection!
|
|
|
Post by MF on Nov 23, 2012 23:00:29 GMT 10
You don't need this rule solely to control time-wasting. The umpire is also empowered by rule 8.04: If that's not enough, pull out 9.01(c): Besides, I don't think anyone is arguing with the principle of removing the pitcher - just that in lower grades the player should be removed from the mound, not the game.
|
|
|
Post by The Puma on Nov 24, 2012 5:16:34 GMT 10
The "several minutes" was from the call of time, to the resumption of play. If there were unlimited visits in grades with the 5 minute rule, it could be abused, just as if non manager discussions weren't charged with a visit. The controversial aspect of the rules on visits is the removal of the pitcher from the game on 2nd in an innings.Never seen tactics to wind down the clock with the 5 minute rule in play Puma? As for common sense, go figure the "unofficial"manager who sets up his fall guy in case there is an ejection! There is no argument for unlimited visits. Your getting off track. I am pretty sure that there is also a local time wasting rule that would cover this. The question is should a player be removed from the game for a second visit in our local league, the answer is no. I think everyone is unanimous in that and if it needs to be changed mid season then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by 6for8 on Nov 24, 2012 8:49:43 GMT 10
Puma has it %100 percent correct. Cease discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2012 8:55:51 GMT 10
Good luck with getting any rules changes mid season !
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Nov 24, 2012 22:44:55 GMT 10
Puma..if you read previous posts the "track" broadened into what constitutes a visit etc. I also said I didn't like the removal aspect.What might be useful is to know how playing conditions were introduced and if Clubs had any opportunity for input/discussion
|
|
|
Post by shoeless on Nov 27, 2012 15:07:26 GMT 10
I haven't posted for a copy of years, but I'll put my 2c worth in on this discussion. As a great believer in the "Spirit of the Game," I don't believe that the policing of this rule is really something that the Boys in Blue (and Girls - Sorry Fiona and any other females) should be overly worried about - the rule from the Offical Australian Baseball Rule (8.06) clearly states in a Professional League - BV unless it's changed since 2010/2011 season is not a Professional League as Stockley mentioned so end of rule. If BV has become a Professional League then can someone explain the Rule that allows a team bat all players named on the Team Sheet, as is allowed in BV's lower Grades - i.e Div 1 4ths, as I had a very hard time explaining it to my almost 70 year old American Father-In-Law on the weekend? Nate I know you are a stickler for the rules and making sure every "i" is dotted and "t" is crossed surely you would realise that BV is not a Professional League, and some rules have been adapted to suit "Our" game. And as for sticking to the rules - if some more people actually read the rule book they would know that there is at least 10 rules of baseball that contradict each other (maybe KC you could start a tread that outed these rules as it is "Gold" for a Manager) and then add in some more that BV have added that make no sense to baseball people - my favourite being a Manager being reported for Dissent (and thats not sour grapes from me, just a cop out IMO, but something that we need to respect), please check the definition of Dissent (v). See you guys in another 2 years....
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Nov 27, 2012 15:34:36 GMT 10
Whilst I appreciate your point of view shoeless, on what basis can umpires choose to enforce or not enforce rules? Fair enough if it was discretionary element, so that umpires had some leeway in how it was enforced, but unfortunately it is stated in absolute terms. Where would it leave a manager who is accustomed to non enforcement as the norm, and then in the middle of a crucial game it becomes enforced? Personally, if I was the manager I would protest the inconsistency. ..can't be half pregnant! There is no question that the rule is overwhelmingly disliked, but even at this stage of the season it is apparently news to some managers, presumably because of inconsistent application.
|
|
|
Post by matjaz27 on Nov 27, 2012 15:45:29 GMT 10
Can someone tell me what the managers say at a visit anyway. I know when I was a manager I either told a joke or said give me the ball. Dont know what all the fuss is about. If you need to visit twice your either wasting time or your dragging him anyway.
|
|
|
Post by shoeless on Nov 27, 2012 15:50:50 GMT 10
Hey Eck43 - quick question for you - How many BV players make a living from playing BV baseball? If the answer is all of them then by all means the Visits rule is a keeper otherwise, it should be removed.
BV should release an official statement to all clubs to inform players and managers that the rule was incorrectly policed and from today forward will no longer be policed.
You what people make mistakes - nuts happens - and even the biggest sport in our country AFL have changed rules during the season, why can't we........
|
|
|
Post by gj on Nov 27, 2012 16:07:36 GMT 10
Good to hear from you again Shoeless. You are absolutely correct (as was Stockley) It is a professional rule that has no place in club baseball.
|
|
|
Post by bobby on Nov 27, 2012 16:09:41 GMT 10
Especially a professional rule if you have to take the pitcher out of the game, its not like a club team has a 25 man roster to use....
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Nov 27, 2012 19:15:42 GMT 10
Shoeless ..Don't disagree with anything you have said. I would have thought it is up to the CLUBS to pressure BV to remove the rule. It's not a case of it can't be enforced..that part is easy, and managers (when informed) don't have their pitchers removed from the game. Not much point in shooting the messengers. Quite agree with your AFL analogy, but it is always the clubs who influence rule changes, not the umpires. The point many people seem to be missing, because no one likes the rule, is that no pitchers (to my knowledge)have been removed from the game, at the expense of having a second visit. The options of first visit removal or finish the innings have been used. This is NOT justifying the rule, but it is simplistic to think that these options don't exist. And once again..I hope the rule is removed!
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Nov 28, 2012 11:12:00 GMT 10
What we could do with the rule is and this is a case of being half pregnant, if the pitcher is a paid servant or non national being sponsored by the club, then apply the rule, if the pitcher is an amatuer like 96.3% of the baseballing fraternity then the rule doesn't apply. Being what is classified as an amatuer league, the rule will not apply nor would it be upheld in a court of law because of one word. But then again, the Blues would take this rule to heart instead of applying rule 43, the use of commonsense. Let's just put the rule into perspective then file it in the wpb where it belongs. Good luck to all you D1 & 2 Managers.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Nov 28, 2012 11:17:04 GMT 10
I want to clear up a couple of points...
Rule 8.06 has existed in the Australian Rules of Baseball for as long as I've been coaching... it's my understanding it has been applied in other state leagues around Australia for a long time, and I know for fact its been applied at National Championships for at least a decade... Until this year, BV specifically noted in its playing conditions that rule 8.06 was excluded (meaning unlimited visits by managers to pitchers)... I don't know why.
This exclusion was removed this season, meaning Rule 8.06 must now be applied in full. THIS EXCLUSION WAS NOT REMOVED BY THE SLC... at no point was the SLC asked to consider this change.
My understanding is the removal of the exclusion was driven by the umpires, following a recommendation from the ABF that Victoria comply with Rule 8.06. This was due to a perception that managers/coaches were slowing down games and wasting time, and from a belief coaches were not comprehensive of the rule, leading to mistakes by coaches at tournaments where the rule applied.
Personally, I didn't see the exclusion being abused at Div 1 1st's/2nd's games, but I don't see all games, so I can't say it wasn't a problem.
I'm seeking clarification on the wording of 'A professional league shall adopt...' and its application to our amateur league... my guess is, in absence of a contrary rule applying specifically to an amateur league, all leagues shall adopt this rule.
I understand it's an odd wording, but I don't think we should be getting hung up on the semantics... for example, Rule 1.16 regarding helmets states, "A professional league shall adopt the following Rule pertaining to helmets...' Does this mean because we're not a professional league we should just ignore the helmet rules?
The rule was discussed at the SLC meeting, however further clarification was required from the umpires as to their interpretation. The umpires are proceeding by enforcing the full letter of the rule, and are expecting all umpires at all levels to do the same. From what I've seen, I would suggest it is unlikely this rule will be changed or altered in coming seasons, so please ensure your managers understand it properly.
As has been noted on this thread, and was noted by the umpires in reponse to clarification of the rule, moving the pitcher into a defensive position is only prohibited when the manager makes the second visit in an inning... managers can still make the defensive change on either the first visit of during an offensive inning.
Umpires are expecting managers to be more diligent in their visits and the management of their pitching staff to avoid issues of time wasting.
While some of these points may not be what people want to hear, I again encourage you all to make sure you and your managers fully understand the rules.
|
|
|
Post by stockley on Nov 28, 2012 11:46:58 GMT 10
Just fix the Damon rule and be done with it. Playing games with semantics is ridiculous and so is enforcing a rule like this in a league like ours.
We pay to play. This rule is not in the spirit of the game within any level of the bvsl. Timing be d**ned, just get it sorted out.
Forcing a player out of a game when they've done nothing wrong is not on when they've paid their fees. Potentially ending a game because a team ran out of players because their pitcher HAD to come out is unfathomable!
No player is going to complain if you fix and notify people that it's been done.
Sent from my GT-I9300T using proboards
|
|
|
Post by stockley on Nov 28, 2012 11:47:18 GMT 10
Just fix the Damon rule and be done with it. Playing games with semantics is ridiculous and so is enforcing a rule like this in a league like ours.
We pay to play. This rule is not in the spirit of the game within any level of the bvsl. Timing be d**ned, just get it sorted out.
Forcing a player out of a game when they've done nothing wrong is not on when they've paid their fees. Potentially ending a game because a team ran out of players because their pitcher HAD to come out is unfathomable!
No player is going to complain if you fix and notify people that it's been done.
Sent from my GT-I9300T using proboards
|
|
|
Post by lovethegame on Nov 28, 2012 12:12:00 GMT 10
I don' see the problem, just plan your visits and know the situation. If your pitcher is a position player make the change on your first visit or let him finish the inning.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Nov 28, 2012 12:18:25 GMT 10
eagle, what you stated I love the explanation and reasoning but your third last paragraph concerning the second visit still mystifies me why that player can't be part of a double switch where the pitcher goes to the outfield or a base. He may be a better hitter and required in the line up in the latter innings. But then again, I am aging and just struggling to try and fathom why we want to apply professional rules to an amateur sport. Helemts are fine as they are a commonsense ruling, but removing a pitcher from the game completely, get real. Does every side in the 2nds, 3rds and 4ths carry that many players. quite often the number is 9 players and that's all you got. Second visit and you are down to eight. Maybe have the rule applying in the ones. but really, all grades. That's just stretching the limits. But what can we do but abide by the laws as set down by the IBAF or whatever the the governing body is.
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Nov 28, 2012 12:34:59 GMT 10
Thank you aueagle..at last we have a rational explanation of how the "rule" was introduced. When you say "umpires" wanted it, I presume that refers to the executive?
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Nov 28, 2012 13:03:05 GMT 10
stockley, I appreciate the sense of frustration your expressing... unfortunately, the rule is unlikely to change, even between seasons. As I've noted, players don't have to be forced from the field, but the responsibility is put on managers to be diligent in their visits... players can still be substituted to the field on the first visit or between innings.
Lovethegame's assessment is spot on... plan your visits, if you think a pitcher might not get through the inning but need him/her on defence, make the change on your first visit... only leave him/her if you're confident of him/her completing the innning.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Nov 28, 2012 13:12:23 GMT 10
OMR, I agree with you, I can't see additional delay in moving a pitcher to a fielding postion as opposed to the bench, unless that fielding position is pitcher to catcher (not permitted in juniors, but could occur in senior baseball)... Perhaps the rule was designed simply to prevent managers from going to the mound more than once an inning... the threat of having to change the pitcher making the manager more diligent in his visits... only guessing on that, but I have a feeling this rule has existed in baseball for a long time.
I think we might have to put aside the word professional... I understand it's being interpreted here as a 'rule for professional players only', but I don't think that's its intended interpretation... the helmets were only another example of the wording... I think it simply means 'organised', and if we're accepting of it in other contexts, I can't see why not for the defensive visit rule.
It is a paradox, but there should be less requirement for the rule in the 1st's (not arguing it should be there, just highlighting this point)... firsts are nine innings games, all other games are determined by time, therefore time wasting is a much greater issue.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Nov 28, 2012 13:16:10 GMT 10
eck43, not sure what you mean by 'executive'? Umpires executive? My understanding is this was an edict passed down by the ABF technical operations department which is then enforced by our umpires, headed by our Director of Umpires, Ian McKenzie.
|
|
|
Post by stockley on Nov 28, 2012 15:01:21 GMT 10
This rule doesn't even affect me. However, it is still a farce.
I agree with the 2 visit limit. The wording just needs to change to the player being removed from the mound in a local context. How hard is that?
Are we playing for sheep stations???
Do the people on here seriously expect every manager to know and understand the nuance of every rule?
How about the 4this guy filling in for his manager cause he's on holidays?
Manage your pitchers is a bullnuts argument. Anything can happen within the context of an inning. Pitch counts cab blow out, teams get hot, etc. Sorry little johnny, you have to go sit on the bench and we play with 8 cause we didn't expect another 25 pitches since our last visit...
And have you never seen a pitcher just lose the zone?
Imho, it's really not that hard to implement common sense and recognise the level of baseball being played within the state.
Sent from my GT-I9300T using proboards
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Nov 28, 2012 15:39:37 GMT 10
I've been thinking about this rule again this afternoon and reasons why it became relevant to enforce removing the pitcher from the game (this rule has been in existence for a long time and I don't think it relates to the number of pitchers on a professional team... even at the big league level, it doesn't make sense to have this rule just because they have more pitchers).
Here's why I think the rule is written this way... manager has a pitcher struggling, so sends a reliever to the pen... lets assume he has either made his first visit, or subsequently makes his first visit after sending the reliever to the pen (doesn't matter either way).
Before reliever has adequate time to prepare, manager decides he needs to replace the current pitcher... with reliever not ready, he can make his second visit and replace the pitcher with a defensive player for long enough to allow the reliever to get ready, then swap the reliever with the previous pitcher, moving the defensive player back into his original position.
Only theorising, but I suggest the rule was implemented to prevent managers from buying time for relievers... I understand this probably doesn't hold much relevance to the arguments being presented here, but just trying to create some basis for why the rule exists.
|
|
|
Post by bobby on Nov 28, 2012 15:46:16 GMT 10
Easiest way around that in pro ball is to send the trainer out first, pitcher has an injury so the reliever can take as much time as he needs now?
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Nov 28, 2012 15:55:17 GMT 10
aueagle you have comprehensively dealt with the rule, but there is one scenario not covered by the present wording which was canvassed earlier in the discussion. i.e. the removal of a junior pitching in seniors when he/she reaches the count. Strict adherence to the rule would mean the pitcher is removed from the game if a prior visit occurred. In fairness to managers, they can't control the pitch count to coincide with the end of an innings.Maybe this could be deemed a "forced" visit, but the rule does not allow for this in its present wording.
|
|
|
Post by bobby on Nov 28, 2012 15:58:48 GMT 10
Wouldnt the mound visits reset when you replace the pitcher Eck?
|
|