Here in Jackson, Mississippi parents obsess over sports much like most anywhere in America. Yesterday, our team had an experience that most people can relate to at some level. And I learned a lesson, that sometimes in life you will be completely unable to make sure the right thing is done. When it relates to children, seeing their confused and disappointed faces, people in control of the circumstances should exercise their power in a responsible way.
Here is the background. At North Jackson Youth Baseball league we have a Commissioner - BB (K and 1st grade) who selects the teams, coaches his own team who he selects himself while the others are done randomly, and sends e-mails to the coaches defining and sometimes redefining the "rules" of the game. The following rules apply to the scenario I am going to provide, but bear in mind that the league's website does not even post rules for the K and 1st and these rules apply to the age group just ab
ove:
27. The umpire is in complete charge of the game once it starts. No protest shall be
considered on a decision involving an umpire's judgment.
43. On all overthrows in fair territory, the ball is in play and base runners can advance as
many bases as desired, but he will advance each base at his own risk. On an overthrow out of
play (over, under or lodged in the fence or into the dugout), the runner shall be awarded the next base at no risk (one base only).
The 8 year old abbreviated rules state: 12. Overthrows - in play - the ball is alive and the runners can advance as many bases as desired at their own risk.
Here is what happened. Our team knew going in that we were playing the toughest team in the league. They were undefeated and we had just recently lost our first game. We like to win too but knew that this game would be tough to win. The team is undefeated because they are stacked. Literally, the commissioner of the league gets to coach his own team, select the players he wants and let the rest of the teams be chosen by random selection. I had heard from other coaches who have played this team that the coach uses his title as commissioner to influence the games but what I saw at this game took my breath away.
In the first inning at bat, our player gets a good hit and the ball is overthrown to the first baseman. As the first base coach, I sent the batter on around to second. Because the ball was not yet fielded and had been lying at the fence line, our third base coach called the runner to third, as he rounded third he remembered our teaching him that he could only take one base so he began to walk back to second. Meanwhile, the short stop has been thrown the ball by the first baseman and he tags the runner who is casually making his way back to second.
The umpire does not call the player out. But the commissioner/coach matter of factly tells the 6 year old to head back to the dugout as he is out. He begins to comply when our head coach attempts to discuss the situation with the other coach. Our position was simple. We know that a man off base can be tagged out but when you are only given one base and you go back, the play is dead and the player remains at second. The commissioner says he has sent multiple e-mails to the coaches articulating the "at your own risk" portion of taking an extra base. Of course, if our player had been tagged out on his way to second, that aspect of the rule would have applied. Although not explained this way during the heat of the moment, I have since had friends with children in the league say that the "at your own risk" portion could also include meaning that an attempt to go beyond one base is an error on the runners part and therefore places him at risk of being tagged. My issue with that explanation is, then why is there a limit of one base. Once you get to the one base, then the play should be dead.
Bootom line to the madness is that it must be nice to be judge, jury and executioner! When a six year old is caught in the middle of this display of who controls a youth game, the question becomes not one of who is in charge but who should be in charge of overseeing the development of our youth. Responsibility is critical to those who have been placed in positions of authority. Unfortunately, in this case we could do nothing about the circumstances. I feel like our team is at the very least owed an apology and a reprimand of the commissioner/coach for his abuse of power should be in order. Further, the board should consider the inherent conflict of interest in being commissioner of the league one coaches. Additionally, people requesting to hold these positions should be screened. Being that adamant about an out is a signal of a person's inner motives and being in charge of children that young requires exercising judgment as it relates to gray areas. This rule is clearly vague and the ruling was like killing a gnat with a sledge hammer.
For the record, this is my impression of the situation and other viewpoints are welcome. I do not have any personal realtionship with the parties I describe and if placed in another situation may find them to be endearing. Being in the position of trying to defend our head coach and teammates, arguing our point felt necessary at the time. But my greater point as to the broader issues needs to be addressed and is the real purpose of this blog. I hope my point will be considered.
Here is the background. At North Jackson Youth Baseball league we have a Commissioner - BB (K and 1st grade) who selects the teams, coaches his own team who he selects himself while the others are done randomly, and sends e-mails to the coaches defining and sometimes redefining the "rules" of the game. The following rules apply to the scenario I am going to provide, but bear in mind that the league's website does not even post rules for the K and 1st and these rules apply to the age group just ab
ove:27. The umpire is in complete charge of the game once it starts. No protest shall be
considered on a decision involving an umpire's judgment.
43. On all overthrows in fair territory, the ball is in play and base runners can advance as
many bases as desired, but he will advance each base at his own risk. On an overthrow out of
play (over, under or lodged in the fence or into the dugout), the runner shall be awarded the next base at no risk (one base only).
The 8 year old abbreviated rules state: 12. Overthrows - in play - the ball is alive and the runners can advance as many bases as desired at their own risk.
Here is what happened. Our team knew going in that we were playing the toughest team in the league. They were undefeated and we had just recently lost our first game. We like to win too but knew that this game would be tough to win. The team is undefeated because they are stacked. Literally, the commissioner of the league gets to coach his own team, select the players he wants and let the rest of the teams be chosen by random selection. I had heard from other coaches who have played this team that the coach uses his title as commissioner to influence the games but what I saw at this game took my breath away.
In the first inning at bat, our player gets a good hit and the ball is overthrown to the first baseman. As the first base coach, I sent the batter on around to second. Because the ball was not yet fielded and had been lying at the fence line, our third base coach called the runner to third, as he rounded third he remembered our teaching him that he could only take one base so he began to walk back to second. Meanwhile, the short stop has been thrown the ball by the first baseman and he tags the runner who is casually making his way back to second.
The umpire does not call the player out. But the commissioner/coach matter of factly tells the 6 year old to head back to the dugout as he is out. He begins to comply when our head coach attempts to discuss the situation with the other coach. Our position was simple. We know that a man off base can be tagged out but when you are only given one base and you go back, the play is dead and the player remains at second. The commissioner says he has sent multiple e-mails to the coaches articulating the "at your own risk" portion of taking an extra base. Of course, if our player had been tagged out on his way to second, that aspect of the rule would have applied. Although not explained this way during the heat of the moment, I have since had friends with children in the league say that the "at your own risk" portion could also include meaning that an attempt to go beyond one base is an error on the runners part and therefore places him at risk of being tagged. My issue with that explanation is, then why is there a limit of one base. Once you get to the one base, then the play should be dead.
Bootom line to the madness is that it must be nice to be judge, jury and executioner! When a six year old is caught in the middle of this display of who controls a youth game, the question becomes not one of who is in charge but who should be in charge of overseeing the development of our youth. Responsibility is critical to those who have been placed in positions of authority. Unfortunately, in this case we could do nothing about the circumstances. I feel like our team is at the very least owed an apology and a reprimand of the commissioner/coach for his abuse of power should be in order. Further, the board should consider the inherent conflict of interest in being commissioner of the league one coaches. Additionally, people requesting to hold these positions should be screened. Being that adamant about an out is a signal of a person's inner motives and being in charge of children that young requires exercising judgment as it relates to gray areas. This rule is clearly vague and the ruling was like killing a gnat with a sledge hammer.
For the record, this is my impression of the situation and other viewpoints are welcome. I do not have any personal realtionship with the parties I describe and if placed in another situation may find them to be endearing. Being in the position of trying to defend our head coach and teammates, arguing our point felt necessary at the time. But my greater point as to the broader issues needs to be addressed and is the real purpose of this blog. I hope my point will be considered.
3 comments:
What about overruling the umpire? Isn't that the real abuse of power?
Yes, you are correct. One should have to pick a role and stick with it. Being a coach who has the authority to overrule an umpire during your own game is patently unfair and wreaks of bizarre egomania.
This was the response from the commissioner/coach who obviously wanted to articulate how he was right on the issue. Even with the response, although no longer as vague, I would claim that the conflict of interest issue and the rather draconian rule reiterates the problem!
See below:
Guys:
I want to clear up any confusion that may be out there about the dead ball/runner at risk rule. In buddy ball, the runner is at risk. Simply stated, this means that if a runner gets tagged out going to a base, getting back to a base, just lingering around a base, or overrunning a base, he is out. I want to be specifically clear about one point--whether the runner is entitled to the base at issue is irrelevant.
For example, if you have an overthrow at first and the runner (who can only take one base) decides to go to third and gets tagged out doing so, he is out, even though he was never entitled to go to third in the first place. If the same runner makes a turn toward third and gets tagged out trying to get back to second, he is out.
If a runner reaches a base he is not entitled to, the umpire (or coaches) will send him back once the ball is called dead (or the coach who is pitching catches it when it is thrown back into the infield). To be clear on this point, you cannot run and tag out a runner who is safely standing on a base, but until he gets to a base and is safely standing on it, he is at risk.
This rule has been in effect for sometime in buddy ball. I have sent "at risk" e-mails to coaches over the last two years and discussed this issue at coaches meetings. I am not trying to bother you--just want to clear this up.
As for the tournament at the end of the year, I would like feedback from everyone on the format. Right now, we are thinking of 3 divisions--we can call them red, blue, and black. The divisions would be based on the records at the end of the year--top 4 teams in one division, next 4 in the next division, and next 5 in another division. This would give basically 3 separate tournaments with each team in each bracket having a similar record.
Seeding would also be somewhat different. For example, in one bracket, instead of 9 playing 13 (we have 13 teams), 12 and 13 would play each other first. In another bracket, 5 and 6 would play each other. Simply stated, your first round game would be against the team you are the most close to in the final standings. I don't envision the 3 bracket winners playing each other because these extra games will probably be enough.
I welcome any opinions in support of or contrary to the tournament idea.
Thanks.
Post a Comment