Counting only Runs Against for Tie Resolution?

[remind]

So uh, the rules of ISF on Tie Resolution when several teams has the same win/loss record,
is to order the teams only by their Runs Against amount.

I don't understand it, because to me the more intuitive way is to count the "total net difference of Runs For - Runs against".
So can anyone tell me the rationale of using only Runs Against, instead of using Runs For, or the difference between them to order?

 

[PA SB Dad]

It keeps teams from unnecessarily running up the score in blow outs.

 

[remind]

what? why does it have to?

 

[shockcoach]

Different way of accomplishing the same thing. Most tourny's that we do is run differential (max 8 runs), then runs against, then runs for. If still tied it's a coin flip.

 

[cshilt]

What team is better, the one that wins 15-12 or the one that wins 10-0?

 

[ctfastpitch]

What team is better, the one that wins 15-12 or the one that wins 10-0?

Exactly. Also, with a mercy rule, some strong teams may have significantly fewer at bats, depending on their draw (e.g. if they mercy a team after 3 innings, how many more runs could they have scored if they played a full game?). No tie breaker is perfect in pool play (since not all teams play each other), but using runs allowed is probably the fairest, and avoids providing an incentive for bad sportsmanship.

 

[remind]

Here's situation I am facing: the win loss record are tied by several teams, so they have to resolve by runs.
Although my team has the best runs differential, they are following the custom of ISF to only count Runs Against, which we tied with another team.
And then since we lost to that team in the round robin, that other team is considered the winner despite having lower runs differential than us

still I understand not using Runs For. But not using Runs Differential???

 

[stephanie]

it's aggravating, we all agree, but think of the number of games out there that never finish the home teams at-bat because they were ahead and never needed to bat...