Interesting Events Going Down at the LLSBWS

[29dad]

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

And this is where I fall on your side. There was some very bad information that was put out as gospel which turned out to be entirely incorrect. The West players didn't bunt every at bat (even with two strikes), West wasn't already guaranteed a spot in the semifinals, etc.

 

[nanotech14]

From what I understand is west was moving on either way. Win or lose to southeast they were moving on. But lose to south east and it knocks out central win and knocks out southeast and central moves on. Is that true?

 

[WaSpeed02]

From what I understand is west was moving on either way. Win or lose to southeast they were moving on. But lose to south east and it knocks out central win and knocks out southeast and central moves on. Is that true?

No. If West won, they were moving on. If they lost and scored 1 run, they were out. If they lost without scoring a run, they were in.

Edit: someone else also mentioned that if they lost but scored 3 or more runs, they would have been in. I had not heard that before and have not verified it, but it may certainly be true as well.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GoCaboNow]

And this is where I fall on your side. There was some very bad information that was put out as gospel which turned out to be entirely incorrect. The West players didn't bunt every at bat (even with two strikes), West wasn't already guaranteed a spot in the semifinals, etc.

Ah, yes. You are correct, they were not guaranteed the spot!

However, I did speak with several locals at the game that said it was entirely obvious West was not playing to put any runs on the board. I suppose that was the dilemma. Play to win, like any other game, or throw it and guarantee you move on. From watching many of the games live, I thought they were one of the best, if not the best team there. I don't have an axe to grind. I just find it a curious decision by the coach and would go against how I would want someone lead my daughter at 12u.

 

[djcarter1966]

No. If West won, they were moving on. If they lost and scored 1 run, they were out. If they lost without scoring a run, they were in.

Edit: someone else also mentioned that if they lost but scored 3 or more runs, they would have been in. I had not heard that before and have not verified it, but it may certainly be true as well.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is one thing I feel bad about Coach Miller for is that ESPN put out the narrative that it was all about avoiding playing Central because that is what the protest was about when that was in fact NOT the case.

The problem was Coach Miller could not come out and say no I lost the game so I would get into the semis because then he would be admitting he lost on purpose. The only part that is a little irritating is not just fessing up to losing the game on purpose and trying to play it off like the girls played to win...he could not let them play to win because that would not have been smart and no matter what anyone says the Coach is smart enough to know better than employing this strategy then letting the girls that usually sit the bench more to start the game and then play to win.

and who knows what all the other permutations of the tiebreaker rules were because they are so ridiculous at the very least if they are not going to change the formats they should play both final pool games at the same time on different fields so they can't game the system like this.

 

[Sweet Lou]

No. If West won, they were moving on. If they lost and scored 1 run, they were out. If they lost without scoring a run, they were in.

Edit: someone else also mentioned that if they lost but scored 3 or more runs, they would have been in. I had not heard that before and have not verified it, but it may certainly be true as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's pretty funny.

From another board they used one tie breaker for 3 teams and then went H2H on remaining teams but it seems a crazy set of tie breakers where you are better off being shut out than you are scoring 1 run.

I just thought that was funny, not that it adds much to the discussion.

 

[canyonjoe]

I like many others was under the impression that West had already clinched a spot in the Semis. In light of this new info I have less a problem with what he did. It's idiotic that any tiebreaker would cause you to not want to score runs. This whole runs allowed per inning is just stupid. If I win 25-1 in 4 innings and you win 2-1 in 6 innings you are ahead of me in a tiebreaker. LL should change this for next year.

 

[SoCalASABlue]

No. If West won, they were moving on. If they lost and scored 1 run, they were out. If they lost without scoring a run, they were in.

Edit: someone else also mentioned that if they lost but scored 3 or more runs, they would have been in. I had not heard that before and have not verified it, but it may certainly be true as well.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Using your own words above - why play to lose at all?? Why not win (which seems to be highly likely considering how they did in their other games)?

 

[riseball]

If winning does not help you advance then why even show up?

 

[smddad]

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.

The official statement from Little League stated:

Official statement from LLI regarding today's game:

On Monday, August 17, the outcome of the Little League Softball World Series game between Southeast Region Champion, Rowan Little League from Salisbury, N.C., and West Region Champion, South Snohomish Little League from Snohomish, Wash., resulted in a three-way tie at the conclusion of pool play in Pool B. The ties were between these two teams and the Central Region Champion, Central Iowa Little League from Polk City, Iowa.

According to Little League International’s tie-breaker rules, the Southeast Region Champion will advance to the Semifinal Rounds. The Little League International Tournament Committee recently received credible reports that some teams did not play with the effort and spirit appropriate for any Little League game.

Given these circumstances and in order to best determine the second team to advance from Pool B, the Little League International Tournament Committee is requiring that a tie-breaker game be played between the two affected teams – South Snohomish Little League and Central Iowa Little League. The game will be played on Tuesday, August 16, at 9 a.m. Pacific time.


Brian McClintock | Senior Director of Communications
Little League International | 539 US Highway 15, Williamsport, PA 17701
P: 570-326-1921, ext. 2252 | M: 570-772-2431 | bmcclintock@littleleague.org

Their statement is plural on the teams. However, they did not follow the penalties for breaking the rules. Either toss the managers for the next game or disqualify the teams. If you disqualify the teams, you have no game on ESPN. Then you have no money from ESPN.

For that matter, they didn't even follow their protest rules, which say that only the managers involved in the field can protest a game. Also note that the TD and those present DID NOT uphold the protest. Iowa's local LL president is the one who took the protest (illegally) to Williamsport.

The whole thing was mishandled from the word go by the Little League Officials. Solution: Don't play Little League.