Clock

[GOINGDEEP]

You all do realize that intentionally violating a rule after being warned is a forfeiture of the game to the other team, correct? You also realize that employing tactics noticeably designed to delay or hasten the game is means for a forfeiture without warning, correct?

These two conditions are in the book for ASA, NCAA, ISF & NFHS and probably just about every other softball rule set.

But how could an ump prove it? If we are ahead ( drop dead time ) and field team, 45 seconds on the clock and I bring in a relief pitcher to run the clock out with warm ups. Even though I know I'm running the clock down, the other team knows I'm running the clock down, you know I'm running the clock down, would that "hold up" as means for forfeit? What if my pitcher's arm was hurting, what if she needed to use the restroom?

When a clock becomes part of the game, the game is no longer a "game of inches", it's a game of seconds.

 

[MTR]

But how could an ump prove it? If we are ahead ( drop dead time ) and field team, 45 seconds on the clock and I bring in a relief pitcher to run the clock out with warm ups. Even though I know I'm running the clock down, the other team knows I'm running the clock down, you know I'm running the clock down, would that "hold up" as means for forfeit? What if my pitcher's arm was hurting, what if she needed to use the restroom?

When a clock becomes part of the game, the game is no longer a "game of inches", it's a game of seconds.

The ump doesn't have to "prove" it. Besides, it isn't that hard to recognize it, half the time the coaches tell the umpire they are going to do something stupid to make sure the umpire sees it.

Guess who the one person is who can stop the clock? If you have been reading this thread you will understand that I'm not a fan, but the clock is your inception, not the umpires. Want to get rid of the effects of the clock, make the rule to a time plus one inning. That eliminates the clock games. Tried getting that included in ASA's rules a couple years ago (where a clock is permitted), but was killed. Sometimes I wonder if this is one of those ridiculous things that everyone complains of, but actually want it to continue to exist. I guess those who would be the folks who are not confident in a full game and sees this as another method of winning.

 

[Easton33]

The intent of this rule has nothing to do with the way it is usually interpreted. This rule was written BEFORE time limits were applied to games. The words DELAY and HASTEN. How can getting an out delay a game? It doesn't, it may prolong the game but certainly not delay it. Delay= stop, stall, or temporarily suspend; Hasten= to speed up. The rule was written BEFORE lights were common at ballparks. The intent of the rule was to keep visiting teams from slowing down play until it was too dark for home team to bat. Giving an unfair advantage to visiting team. In today's time limit game, it has no place. Home always gets last bat, unless drop dead. But that completely goes against why this rule was written. Calling time out is delaying the game and by your interpretation you can be justified in making a team forfiet. Wait a minute, "time out"? Doesn't that mean time is out, as in stopped? So if the game clock was actually stopped, like it is supposed to be, then this rule would still be valid. If you don't stop the clock, then they are delaying the game and it by not calling it you are negating this rule. The powers that be have tried to trim things (time outs without stopping clock) and unintended consequences are rules that no longer have effect or are unevenly applied. Give me an example of something that hastens the game..

 

[GOINGDEEP]

The ump doesn't have to "prove" it. Besides, it isn't that hard to recognize it, half the time the coaches tell the umpire they are going to do something stupid to make sure the umpire sees it.

Guess who the one person is who can stop the clock? If you have been reading this thread you will understand that I'm not a fan, but the clock is your inception, not the umpires. Want to get rid of the effects of the clock, make the rule to a time plus one inning. That eliminates the clock games. Tried getting that included in ASA's rules a couple years ago (where a clock is permitted), but was killed. Sometimes I wonder if this is one of those ridiculous things that everyone complains of, but actually want it to continue to exist. I guess those who would be the folks who are not confident in a full game and sees this as another method of winning.

I could fully support the idea of "time plus one inning", I believe most coaches would go for this if it was say......60 mins + 1. That would be pretty close to the normal 75 min timed games.

But, the clock would need to start ONLY when the first batter positions herself in the box and the ump calls "play ball".

 

[CycloneSoftball22]

I could fully support the idea of "time plus one inning", I believe most coaches would go for this if it was say......60 mins + 1. That would be pretty close to the normal 75 min timed games.

But, the clock would need to start ONLY when the first batter positions herself in the box and the ump calls "play ball".

It should be this way all the time , but around here , the clock is always started as soon as the pregame meeting ends. The game actually doesn't start till about 5 minutes later.

 

[CycloneSoftball22]

This bit us more than once this year and it does really get to me but there is simply not much you can do....as a coach you simply would not be doing you job if you did not take a hard fought victory if it is being handed to you. In league play we have actually played out innings so girls who had not batted could get their at bat, but of course those are when the game is not in doubt

This actually happened in a game that involved us this weekend. We were the visiting team and trailing 1-0. We needed to get the other team out in order to get another inning started. There wasn't much time. The opposing coach could have easily stalled out the clock , but chose to just play it straight. We ended up getting them out with around 2:00 left on the clock. We came in scored two runs and then held in the bottom of the inning to win 2-1. This was an elimination game , so we moved on and that team went home. Did that coach do what was "right" for this team? I am not so sure.

 

[David Carter]

It should be this way all the time , but around here , the clock is always started as soon as the pregame meeting ends. The game actually doesn't start till about 5 minutes later.

Has anybody thought about or had a tournament with say 5 innings for pool or bracket games. At least this way everybody knows exactly what they are getting into, you would have some games finish quick while others might go long and it would probably wash out in the end.

 

[CoachKevin]

This actually happened in a game that involved us this weekend. We were the visiting team and trailing 1-0. We needed to get the other team out in order to get another inning started. There wasn't much time. The opposing coach could have easily stalled out the clock , but chose to just play it straight. We ended up getting them out with around 2:00 left on the clock. We came in scored two runs and then held in the bottom of the inning to win 2-1. This was an elimination game , so we moved on and that team went home. Did that coach do what was "right" for this team? I am not so sure.

IMHO, Nope he didn't. As long as there are timed games, clock management is legal. For the ones saying that they want to let the girls experience another inning, well in the above scenario, yup they got that extra inning and got sent home instead of another whole game. Which is the better experience for the girls?

 

[canyonjoe]

I think there are 2 classes of clock management in that situation.

1. Calling the batter down for unneeded conversation, calling random timeouts. Putting up a pitch hitter during the at bat,etc
2. Taking a couple of pitches, not rushing up to the plate.

While neither is technically cheating, I think that 1 is unethical and would not appreciate my DD's team doing it. It's stealing time outside the game.

Situation 2 is more legitimate.

IMHO, teaching kids good sportsmanship is a huge part of what you are supposed to do. I think that most girls would rather win the game on the field, rather than stalling techniques.

I don't think that coaches who do the stalling are awful people. I just have a different opinion.

We played in a tournament a few weeks ago where the team was up 1-0 early and proceeded to stall the rest of the game. I do like the 5 inning idea someone else brought up. At least in A tournaments where you usually have good pitching.

 

[MTR]

I could fully support the idea of "time plus one inning", I believe most coaches would go for this if it was say......60 mins + 1. That would be pretty close to the normal 75 min timed games.

But, the clock would need to start ONLY when the first batter positions herself in the box and the ump calls "play ball".

Actually, when it was proposed as an ASA rule change, it was 75 min + 1 inning.

And the present rule is that the clock starts at first pitch. I disagree with that simply because too many teams are not prepared to take the field when the game is supposed to start and then you have the elongated warm up and last second instructions from the coach and you just blew off and additional 5-10 minutes which is the type of stuff that caused the clock to be put in place.

I would have the clock start at some point after the pregame meeting when all questions are done and coaches and players have returned to the dugout. This gives the teams a little incentive to be prepared to start the game on time to reduce the chance of the clock coming into play.

If the umpires ever enforced the rules involving the time permitted between innings or for warm-up pitches, the teams would go crazy