|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 1, 2008 8:29:54 GMT -5
All:
You may have a copy of the rules which incorrectly states the pitching limitation as 4 innings.
This is wrong.
The 10U fastpitch pitching limitation was changed to 3 innings at the same time the game was reduced to 5 innings.
N.
|
|
red1
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by red1 on Jun 2, 2008 19:17:42 GMT -5
There ought to be a reconsideration of the 3 defensive inning rule for 10U too. Since 10U is 5 innings instead of 7, there ought to be an adjustment to this rule as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 2, 2008 21:57:10 GMT -5
Feel free to raise that issue with your home association so that it can be raised in the winter meetings.
But here is a rotation which will get each player on a 13 person roster 4 innings in a 5 inning game (assuming you play 10 fielders), except players 12 and 13, who get 3.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 1, 2, 3, 4
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 1
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
N.
|
|
red1
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by red1 on Jun 3, 2008 8:01:49 GMT -5
We have a roster of 15. It is possible to get everyone in the game, but only 1 person can play the entire game. The kids who are working hard at practice and showing up to every practice and game get just as much playing time as the ones who don't show as much dedication or don't really want to be there. I have no opportunity as a coach to provide any incentives with playing time to my team.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 3, 2008 20:27:33 GMT -5
Perhaps your complaint is more properly one with your home association which establishes roster sizes.
N.
|
|
red1
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by red1 on Jun 5, 2008 5:39:39 GMT -5
I'm glad that my association is allowing anyone to play who wants to play, even if they sign up after rosters are initially set. I'm trying to point out the inconsistency in the DBA rules that don't take into consideration the differences between 5 and 7 inning games. The DBA rules also indicate that the maximum roster size is 18, so my association is within those rules:
VII. Team Size
A. Every attempt should be made to keep a maximum of 18 players on all rosters.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 5, 2008 10:29:14 GMT -5
You may perceive otherwise, but the meeting at which the "official" game for 10U fastptich was established was noticed to all participating associations, discussed and voted on.
It is nice that you feel good about your home association's rostering policies, but those decisions were presumably made knowing that the game limits are what they are. A complaint that a roster is too large to allow a team to do what it wants to do within the context of those rules is, frankly, too parochial to rise above the local association level.
The roster size rule you mention has a history. It was intended to set the far outside boundary to roster sizes. But, it is not intended to reflect a representation that so long as you keep your roster under 18 things will work out for you. There have been significant discussions at the rules meetings regarding the responsibility of individual associations to keep their rosters at reasonable numbers. But, again, that is sort of more a "state's rights" issue than it is a "federal" issue.
Who is your home association? Do they attend the winter meetings? Did they vote for or against the change to 5 innings? Have you complained to them?
N.
|
|
red1
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by red1 on Jun 19, 2008 20:56:24 GMT -5
I have duly noted to my association, and I would expect that it will be brought up in the future. I'm sure it was an oversight by most, and I understand that a couple of teams have been in the same situation and have mentioned it to the GM. The 3-inning defensive rule, while well-intentioned, is a challenge for teams that have larger rosters and only 5 innings to play everyone. You may think it is parochial, but my position is that if a rule doesn't make sense for everyone then it should be considered and possibly changed, that's all. I would never want them to turn away a player who has signed up late, after initial rosters are set. We should all want to see more kids play and enjoy this game.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 20, 2008 23:52:48 GMT -5
You are suggesting that there are people who don't? Who, for example?
One problem with adjusting minimum play to accommodate teams at the far end of the roster size spectrum is that there will be unintended consequences in the way some number of the smaller roster teams are managed.
Another solution to all of this is to seek formation of a combined team with another DBA member which has an excess of kids who have registered, but not enough to form another team. Although not a frequent occurrence, this has been successfully accomplished in the past.
N.
|
|
red1
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by red1 on Jun 25, 2008 5:30:26 GMT -5
Quote: "Perhaps your complaint is more properly one with your home association which establishes roster sizes."
An association sets rosters, enlists coaches, begins practices, and then has additional girls who want to sign up, they are added to a team that then has a larger roster (15) that is still well within the rules of the DBA, but you say the issue is with the association -- "state's rights."
From your line of reasoning, it sounds to me like you think the association should not have accommodated those late sign-ups, because that gave a team a larger roster.
You then suggest a combined team with other DBA members. Do you have coaches for that new combined team? How about practice times on fields? Will you change the DBA schedule for a new team to be added to a division?
Feel free to keep spinning the issue any way that you want to suit your purposes, because I am sure that I will not convince you otherwise.
A simple rule change that recognizes the difference between 5 and 7 inning games seems to me a much easier solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Jun 28, 2008 5:18:24 GMT -5
Feel better?
The availability of combined teams is not a "spin," is not theoretical and is not impossible.
It has been done, and done under circumstances in which an association either did not have enough children to field a team or, as in the example with which you are dealing, had too many to comfortably accommodate. Coaches were found. Fields were provided. Uniforms were provided. Games were played.
Yes, it does take some effort, but I trust that it will be done again.
As for scheduling, I can assure you that the scheduler goes out of his way to meet the idiosyncrasies of each and every participating association, down to the point of having scrapped and redone division schedules after the so-called Mega Meeting due to the addition or loss of teams.
We aim to please.
Perhaps I was too subtle previously. Let me correct that. The downside of your proposal is that, if mandatory play time is reduced to 2 innings, then there will be some number of managers of teams with smaller rosters, even 11 or 12, who will routinely limit one or more players to 2 innings. It will happen. That ought to engender enthusiasm for the game, eh?
Maybe your suggestion is the right answer. But I think that we all have to recognize that it would come with a price. This is just my opinion, but I am reluctant to pay that price when I am not convinced that other existing avenues for solving roster size issues have been fully exhausted.
And, unless I have done the math wrong, even a 16 player roster can be managed to provide at least 3 innings in the field for each player in a 5 inning game.
Even though I am a hardball coach, I have given 10U fastpitch much more thought over the years than I ever thought I would. Currently, I agree with you that a fundamental rule change is needed. My proposal is going to be 6 innings, no child "sits" two consecutive defensive innings.
Of course, as you have sensed, I have my own axe to grind on issues of this character, and it just occurred to me the reason why I do not like your proposal. I have always advocated that 3 innings in a 7 inning game is wrong, at that it ought to be at least 4. So, when you say that the 5 inning game ought to be scaled down to match up with the 7 inning games I twitch because I do not like the rule on the 7 inning games.
N.
|
|
red1
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by red1 on Jul 1, 2008 11:28:54 GMT -5
I agree that it would be wrong for an 11-member team to have one or two players who only play the minimum every game. But, it seems to me that the parents and players would have some say in that situation, though. And if the coach doesn't recognize that as a problem, then maybe they shouldn't be coaching in this league.
Maybe 6 or 7 inning games are the answer, instead, but there is a price to pay for that too. 10U fastpitch games tend to be long, with many walks. Even now, if there is a time limit because of a game that follows, teams do not always get the full 5 innings completed to begin with.
The math is simple:
3/7 = 43% 4/7 = 57%
2/5 = 40% 3/5 = 60%
All along, all I have been asking for is alignment between the different levels. Make them similar percentages.
|
|
