Drop Dead Rule

[shockcoach]

How's it played out where you're at. We had a tournament this weekend and the TD says that at the time limit that's your final score. No reverting back to the previous inning, so the visiting team gets the advantage with an extra at-bat. Example, we entered the last inning tied. Our team was the home team. Visitors got a couple runs on us. We go to get our at bats and umpire calls TIME! DROP DEAD RULE! We then got handed a loss, rather than a tie. Another team in this same tournament was ahead going into the last inning and ended up losing because they did not get their final at bat, being home team.

Does anyplace else do this, or do you revert back to the last complete inning if home team is behind and doesn't complete their at bat?

 

[BretMan]

Of all the hundreds of league and tournament games I've been involved with I have NEVER seen a time limit handled this way. That makes no sense. It goes against the fundamental idea that, no matter what the time limit, each team must be given an equal number of at-bats. Simply put, this interpretation of the drop dead rule can give one team an advantage not intended by the basic rules- more chances to score runs than afforded to the other team.

The only exception I could imagine would be if this was a friendly scrimmage or showcase type tournament where the main idea was practice or playing time, in which case the final scores might be moot. But if it's a league or tournament where the games "count", affecting actual standings or if a team advances for further play, this interpretation is just plain nuts.

 

[Coach Tom]

Agree with BretMan. Never seen it handled that way. Ridiculous. Revert to last full inning played is the correct way.

 

[SoCalDad]

Agree with BretMan and Coach Tom. Never seen the drop dead rule applied in this manner where the home team did not have a chance to bat. What I have seen a few times is where the home team comes back in the bottom of the last inning and drop dead is called before the inning is complete. In this situation I have seen both situations happen where the score reverts to the previous inning and where the game ends with the home team getting the win. Really depends no how the tournament rules are written. At our home tournament last year our local tournament rules were a bit fuzzy in this area and caused a bit of a stir when a team was eliminated when we reverted to the prior inning even though they came back in the bottom of the inning. We have since updated our tournament rule to read:

No new inning after 1:20, drop dead after 1:30. Score will revert to the end of the previous inning if the home team doesn't have an opportunity to tie or win. The home team does not have to complete the inning only has to have the opportunity at an at bat. Games can end in a tie during pool play; in bracket play all games will be played to a winner. In the case of a tie at the 1:30 drop dead time the ASA tie breaker rule will be utilized beginning at the top of the next inning.

If this rule

 

[sluggers]

It is very unusual, but not unheard of. The rule has been used where a tournament was ran on strictly enforced time limits.

E.g., there was a national championship tournament that had 3 days of a 4 day tournament rained out. So, they played 1 hour strict time limits--not one minute over to finish an inning. The umpires walked off the field after 60 minutes. The team that was ahead when the umpire walked off won the game.

The concept is that this will stop the defensive team from prolonging a game. I've seen it done a 100 times where the defensive team wastes time in order for the game to be called.

 

[Ade's Dad]

Some what common in my area for pool games only.

 

[Coach JV]

Even in pool play, drop dead always reverts back the the
last completed inning. I too have been a part of hundreds
of games and have never seen the rule played like that

 

[TowPilot]

Somewhat common here as well. Changes the coin flip decision. You want to be visitors.

 

[BretMan]

It is very unusual, but not unheard of. The rule has been used where a tournament was ran on strictly enforced time limits.

E.g., there was a national championship tournament that had 3 days of a 4 day tournament rained out. So, they played 1 hour strict time limits--not one minute over to finish an inning. The umpires walked off the field after 60 minutes. The team that was ahead when the umpire walked off won the game.

The concept is that this will stop the defensive team from prolonging a game. I've seen it done a 100 times where the defensive team wastes time in order for the game to be called.

Which warps the spirit and intent of the rules more: Having a team stall or giving one team more at-bats than the other one?

Besides that, I don't see how this would stop the defensive team from stalling. Suppose the visiting team is ahead, the home team is batting and the clock is ticking down. The defensive team would have a BIG incentive to stall in this situation! Prolong the game and it effectively takes the bats out of the hands of the home team, making it impossible for them to score before the clock expires. If the purpose and intent of the rule you posted is to prevent stalling, I doesn't seem to have been too well thought out.

Anytime there is a clock imposed on a sport designed not to use one, and with no real rules addressing clock management, the potential for abuse or stalling is there. But there are rules an umpire can enforce to head off illegal stalling tactics right up to and including forfeiture of the game. I would much rather play a game where the possibility of stalling exists, but the umpires know how to address it, than one where the other team might get five at-bats and my team only gets four!

 

[SBFAMILY]

Welcome Bret. We can use an umpire on this site.