Interesting Events Going Down at the LLSBWS

[MTR]

It was written during the height of McCarthyism. You can bury your head into the sand of ignorance if you wish. Either way, it's still not part of the rulebook.

Didn't say it was, just questioning the assumption that the only God must be that of Christianity.

 

[MNDad]

I would assume the bold print explains it. Your guess is as good as mine regarding how LL officials came to their judgment.

I do know their official reason for allowing the play in game was absolute BS, though.

***edit: sorry it did not bold the section, but I'm sure you can see what I'm referring to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NOTE: This policy is not intended to prevent a
manager from using lesser-skilled players more frequently if he or she
wishes, even if such action may result in losing a game):

No one is disputing that. If thats all he did there wouldn't be any discussion. You admitted yourself he made sure his team lost and was shut out because losing while scoring a single run would eliminate them. He lost on purpose so if these rules do apply, he cheated.

If these rules apply, the coach cheated.

 

[WaSpeed02]

NOTE: This policy is not intended to prevent a
manager from using lesser-skilled players more frequently if he or she
wishes, even if such action may result in losing a game):

No one is disputing that. If thats all he did there wouldn't be any discussion. You admitted yourself he made sure his team lost and was shut out because losing while scoring a single run would eliminate them. He lost on purpose so if these rules do apply, he cheated.

If these rules apply, the coach cheated.

No, you are ignoring the way the rule is written. It specifically says that if he chooses to play his subs and in so doing loses the game, then the stuff that follows does not apply.

If you want to say it does apply, then explain the following:

A) Why didn't LL officials cite the rule as the basis for their decision?

B) Why wasn't Fred disqualified for his decision? Or even the entire West team?


You can't say he broke the rule without citing the rule. And with no broken rule, the allegation of cheating is baseless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WaSpeed02]

NOTE: This policy is not intended to prevent a manager from using lesser-skilled players more frequently if he or she wishes, even if such action may result in losing a game):


seems black and white to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MNDad]

NOTE: This policy is not intended to prevent a manager from using lesser-skilled players more frequently if he or she wishes, even if such action may result in losing a game):


seems black and white to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're taking the passage out of context and you know it. The section you're quoting is saying that merely playing subs isn't against the rules even if it results in a loss. Like I said, I'm not familiar with LL and I have no idea if this is their actual rules. IF they are though, he clearly violated them.

INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENT POOL PLAY FORMAT
SECTION I – GUIDELINES

P. When a manager or coach instructs his/her players to play poorly for
any reason, such as, but not limited to the following, such action may
result in the manager’s removal by the umpire-in-chief, and/or
removal of the manager, coach(es) and/or team from further
tournament play. NOTE: This policy is not intended to prevent a
manager from using lesser-skilled players more frequently if he or she
wishes, even if such action may result in losing a game):
1. losing a game to effect a particular outcome in a Pool Play
Format tournament;
2. so as to lose a game by the 10-run rule;
3. to delay the game until the curfew;
4. to allow an opponent to tie the score so that more innings may
be played, etc.

 

[WaSpeed02]

You're taking the passage out of context and you know it. The section you're quoting is saying that merely playing subs isn't against the rules even if it results in a loss. Like I said, I'm not familiar with LL and I have no idea if this is their actual rules. IF they are though, he clearly violated them.

INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENT POOL PLAY FORMAT
SECTION I – GUIDELINES

P. When a manager or coach instructs his/her players to play poorly for
any reason, such as, but not limited to the following, such action may
result in the manager’s removal by the umpire-in-chief, and/or
removal of the manager, coach(es) and/or team from further
tournament play. NOTE: This policy is not intended to prevent a
manager from using lesser-skilled players more frequently if he or she
wishes, even if such action may result in losing a game):
1. losing a game to effect a particular outcome in a Pool Play
Format tournament;
2. so as to lose a game by the 10-run rule;
3. to delay the game until the curfew;
4. to allow an opponent to tie the score so that more innings may
be played, etc.

Provide the proof that he instructed his kids to play poorly. Provide the documentation that shows LL officials citing this rule as the basis for their decision. I haven't seen either to be true.

Until then, you are simply reaching.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[29dad]

Provide the proof that he instructed his kids to play poorly. Provide the documentation that shows LL officials citing this rule as the basis for their decision. I haven't seen either to be true.

Until then, you are simply reaching.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not our job to prove one way or another. Little League offcials were on scene, watched the game, and determined that the West coach instructed his team (directly or indirectly) not to score any runs. Those of us on DFP have no way to determine if that assessment was accurate. My strong supposition is that every girl on that team knew that if they scored a run and lost they would be out of the tournament. I grant you that the tiebreaker is ridiculous. The coach seemingly had two options to advance - play to win or play to be shutout. He apparently chose the latter. If so, he'll have to live with that decision.

Curious if this game will ever be posted on youtube. I really would like to know.

Edit - Also, and this is another guess, but the reason that West wasn't simply disqualified per the rule is because LL also received evidence that Iowa did something similar v. Canada. So instead of disqualifying both teams, they made them play each other.

 

[GoCaboNow]

I don't see what the argument is here? The west team purposefully tanked their effort so a WEAKER team would advance, not the Central team that had played them in a tough game earlier. By many accounts the West's team effort did not pass the eye test from previous games. If West wins the game they tanked, or scores three runs, Central Iowa does advance. West advances either way. This was all about tanking the game to get rid of a tougher opponent.

It is bad that the rules are set up for this potential but does not mean the coach has to stoop to this level. If he wants to rest his starter because, either way, they are moving on in the tourney - fine. If he wants to get play for his subs because they are moving on either way- fine. But play to win with whomever takes the field. That was where he got busted because it was obvious he was not playing to win, or compete.

 

[WaSpeed02]

I don't see what the argument is here? The west team purposefully tanked their effort so a WEAKER team would advance.

100% factually incorrect. How can you continue to spout this narrative of his intentions (which was wholly fabricated by the Central coach in order to make himself a targeted victim) when Coach Miller has already released a statement explaining his dilemma and decision??

His decision had NOTHING to do with Central. It could have been a tee ball team in Centrals spot, and it wouldn't have changed the dilemma he was in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WaSpeed02]

Not our job to prove one way or another. Little League offcials were on scene, watched the game, and determined that the West coach instructed his team (directly or indirectly) not to score any runs. Those of us on DFP have no way to determine if that assessment was accurate. My strong supposition is that every girl on that team knew that if they scored a run and lost they would be out of the tournament. I grant you that the tiebreaker is ridiculous. The coach seemingly had two options to advance - play to win or play to be shutout. He apparently chose the latter. If so, he'll have to live with that decision.

Curious if this game will ever be posted on youtube. I really would like to know.

Edit - Also, and this is another guess, but the reason that West wasn't simply disqualified per the rule is because LL also received evidence that Iowa did something similar v. Canada. So instead of disqualifying both teams, they made them play each other.

Fair enough and your thoughts are similar to mine on the "why" no rules were cited and no one was dq'd. It's just a mess, I think we can all agree to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk