Ending of a timed game

[Cobb_of_Fury]

I agree with you and have witnessed some blatant and obvious tactics that are over the top a little. Although I have not seen catchers switched out, but I don't see that as a stall tactic because all it involves is another player running out in her catchers gear to takeover the position.

With that said, you'll have a hard time convincing me that if you are the home team and in the lead by 1 run, you're going to tell your players to hustle up to bat, stay in the batters box, etc. to give the other team a fair chance to get three quick outs so they get to bat again.

I'm not suggesting implementing obvious stall tactics to try and burn 6 1/2 minutes off, but you all put yourself in a position to win, as manager you owe it to your players to strategize good time management in a respectful way that will reward you the victory without looking like a pompous rear. I don't believe there's a coach on this board, that when they learn there's only 2 or 3 minutes left, they won't reconsider the pace of their play. Remember, at that moment there's no time to think, you either slow things down a bit, or you keep pushing; you need to make a reactive decision based on the circumstance. Honestly, what would you do?

Yes I agree that having the catcher change equipment or changing the pitcher for no reason other than to stall time is crap. Where is the line though? We were recently just a couple runs up on a good team and had we gone another inning I wasn't feeling real confident. We had about 3 minutes until time was called. I didn't tell my players to stall. I would never tell the girls I was trying to stall a little. However I did have some girls take some pitches that I would not have had them take if I wasn't trying to kill those 3 minutes. Good time management or chicken shirt?

The real answer to this is simple - Just score more runs -

But I have no real problem with things like taking pitches stretching at bats, things like that - but blatant stall tactics bother me - I mentioned the changing the catcher because one of the earlier posters mentioned a team switching catchers and only having one set of equipment that would fall in to the chicken shirt category -

I do think umpires should be mindful of time wasting tactics - most tournaments we do have a rule that says 1 min between innings - I have never seen it enforced.

 

[Lickety Split]

The real answer to this is simple - Just score more runs -

But I have no real problem with things like taking pitches stretching at bats, things like that - but blatant stall tactics bother me - I mentioned the changing the catcher because one of the earlier posters mentioned a team switching catchers and only having one set of equipment that would fall in to the chicken shirt category -

I do think umpires should be mindful of time wasting tactics - most tournaments we do have a rule that says 1 min between innings - I have never seen it enforced.

I apologize, I missed the fact (on earlier post) that the catcher "switched gear" mid-inning, this is a total pompous-rear move; especially after bringing in a new pitcher. There are rules geared towards the integrity of the game and playing & managing in a way that is within the spirit of good sportsmanship. etc. I have no clue what section or what the exact language is or if I'm explaining it accurately, but I'm sure some of the stalling tactics could fall within these sections.

Certain little small "stalling techniques" that fall in line with normal game play, or in line with what you have been doing all game are fine and quite frankly expected. But the onerous "I think I'll use all my timeouts this inning, I think I'll use all my mound visits this inning, I think I'll change pitchers with two outs, etc." are classless and make the coaching staff of the other team look like asses.

I like your first reply, score more runs. Sometimes easier said than done. Might as well throw in the flip side, prevent the other team from scoring runs too (lol).

 

[CoogansBluff]

Was thinking about the comment that coaches owe it to their players to give them the best chance to win, and that might mean stalling. If we're really stalling for the kids' sake, why not get their input? Have a group meeting and say, 'As you know, games are timed. There will come a time where it will be to the advantage of one team to stall, like calling timeouts that they don't need, changing pitchers in the middle of an inning, etc. How would you feel if another team did that to you? Do you want to play that way?''

It's pretty easy for adults/coaches to talk kids into doing what you want, but if the argument is presented in a neutral way, I'd be curious to know how the players would feel about it.

Fact that coaches don't have these discussions very often tells me that the ''I'm doing it for the kids'' argument is a rationalization. If we're really doing it for the kids, we'd probably ask them if that's what they really want.

 

[riseball]

Was thinking about the comment that coaches owe it to their players to give them the best chance to win, and that might mean stalling. If we're really stalling for the kids' sake, why not get their input? Have a group meeting and say, 'As you know, games are timed. There will come a time where it will be to the advantage of one team to stall, like calling timeouts that they don't need, changing pitchers in the middle of an inning, etc. How would you feel if another team did that to you? Do you want to play that way?''

It's pretty easy for adults/coaches to talk kids into doing what you want, but if the argument is presented in a neutral way, I'd be curious to know how the players would feel about it.

Fact that coaches don't have these discussions very often tells me that the ''I'm doing it for the kids'' argument is a rationalization. If we're really doing it for the kids, we'd probably ask them if that's what they really want.

While I do not agree with stalling, there is a reason you do not discuss a coaching tactic in a group meeting and get input from the players. A team cannot be successful as a democracy, at best it is a benevolent dictatorship.

 

[Lickety Split]

Was thinking about the comment that coaches owe it to their players to give them the best chance to win, and that might mean stalling. If we're really stalling for the kids' sake, why not get their input? Have a group meeting and say, 'As you know, games are timed. There will come a time where it will be to the advantage of one team to stall, like calling timeouts that they don't need, changing pitchers in the middle of an inning, etc. How would you feel if another team did that to you? Do you want to play that way?''

It's pretty easy for adults/coaches to talk kids into doing what you want, but if the argument is presented in a neutral way, I'd be curious to know how the players would feel about it.

Fact that coaches don't have these discussions very often tells me that the ''I'm doing it for the kids'' argument is a rationalization. If we're really doing it for the kids, we'd probably ask them if that's what they really want.

Every decision the coach makes during the course of the game is to give the kids a chance to win. Whether it's to put in a pinch runner, do a double steal, delayed squeeze, change pitchers, defensive replacement later in the game, etc. The coach doesn't discuss this with the kids. He makes coaching choices to win the game. So, late in the game the coach might decide to "take pitches", he might decide to "give a few extra signals to the batter" to burn off another 10 seconds, he might stall the pitcher by "directing outfielders left or right", he might call out pitches to "walk a batter to lengthen the first at-bat", etc. He doesn't talk about this with the kids, he just does it from the first pitch to the last pitch.

 

[CoogansBluff]

Every decision the coach makes during the course of the game is to give the kids a chance to win.

Not true. Many decisions are made that put player development and sportsmanship ahead of winning.

Also, stalling is not merely a coaching tactic, such as when to bunt. It is something that defines who you are as a team. It's what you stand for. If I coached a game where stalling was a factor, I think it would be a great use of time to discuss that with the players. Helps them understand the game and the choices that we make that define what we want to be. Doesn't mean that the players get to decide. But I'd be interested in their input.

I just have a tough time buying that a coach is doing it for his players when he really doesn't know how they feel about it. Sounds more like he's doing it because he wants to win, and then rationalizing it.

 

[MTR]

Don't know how many times I've stated this in the past, if there must be a time limit, it should be finish the inning + 1 full inning, if necessary. The game should never end due to a clock.

 

[riseball]

Don't know how many times I've stated this in the past, if there must be a time limit, it should be finish the inning + 1 full inning, if necessary. The game should never end due to a clock.

This is great in theory and it has been tried down here. The unintended result is that the gamesmanship just occurs a bit earlier. Instead of extending it to 1 extra inning now you are playing for 2 making it more advantageous if you are down.

 

[Lickety Split]

Not true. Many decisions are made that put player development and sportsmanship ahead of winning.

Good point, I'll agree with you here. But that's not as common in Travel Ball as it is in Little League.

It is something that defines who you are as a team. It's what you stand for.

I'll disagree here.

I just have a tough time buying that a coach is doing it for his players when he really doesn't know how they feel about it. Sounds more like he's doing it because he wants to win, and then rationalizing it.

Yes, of course he wants to win. Travel Programs that don't win, continually lose, will lose players and not survive. When players look for a new travel team, one of the items they look at is success. Winning is important to the players, parents and organization.

Here's a scenario to ponder. Your team hasn't won a tourney all year. Finally you make it to the Championship. You are position to win and time is running out. You fail to manage the clock "a little" and you lose. If you used some common stalling tactics (take a pitch, etc.) you would have won. After the game you are asked by the President of your organization or a couple parents why you didn't "blank", "blank", "blank" at the end? Or why did you "blank", "blank", "blank" at the end; all you had to do was "blank" and the clock would have run out. What's your rationalization to them?

 

[Lickety Split]

Don't know how many times I've stated this in the past, if there must be a time limit, it should be finish the inning + 1 full inning, if necessary. The game should never end due to a clock.

I like this. Game time is 70 minutes. Once clock goes off you finish the inning, and play one more full inning.