McMike

This is my understanding also, and makes sense. What surprised me was that it is not in writing anywhere that I could find.

This is a good point. However, of course, when one coach has a weaker pitching staff, he doesn't see it this way. What I am looking for though, is where the rule book says this in writing. It's always much simpler to just whip out the rule book and point to it, rather than argue with a bunch of people who haven't actually read the rules and remember something incorrect from twenty years ago. I will contact the state office. Thanks.

Thanks. Yes, in CO the rules explicitly state that umpires do not have pitch count responsibility. I was hoping there's a rules geek hanging out here, who could point me to the text. Because I do not find it anywhere in writing, yet I feel like it would come up frequently, like almost every time they replay a game. I'll reach out to the state.

Thank you. I should clarify, I understand that the pitch count rest rules are what they are no matter what. If you threw x pitches yesterday, then you have to take y days of rest. My question was, if you have a postponed game for weather, and the pitcher was at, say, 90 pitches, then three weeks later the game is resumed, and he hasn't pitched for a week: then does he start with 90 pitches for purposes of the resumed game? The distinction is important because in the original suspended game, he was 20 pitches away from reaching the daily max. Instead now he has a fresh 110 pitches and can pitch much longer?

Hi. If a game is resumed on another day after being postponed, does the pitcher's count continue from wherever it was when the original game stopped (i.e. the game was frozen and continues exactly where it was)? My understanding is that the pitch count, as a safety rule, in fact exists on the day-to-day calendar alone, regardless of whether a game is new or resumed or whatever. So, whether the game is resumed the next day or the next month, the pitcher's status depends on what he did the previous day(s). If the game is day ago or a month ago, his pitch count for that day (and thus for that game) starts at zero that day either way. I can understand a complaint about "fairness" if a postponement gives a fresh count for a hot pitcher. But that's how it goes, right? I can't find any rules on this. High school NFHS. Colorado CHSAA.

Yes, the catcher throws slow and runs fast. Thanks I fixed the F5. Can you please cite the HS rule about avoiding collisions? (I suppose either way, if a runner has his head down, it's going to be hard to avoid.) So, as to the main question: everyone was there at the same time, including the ball, so... "no call" is the correct call? Yeah, the encouraging collisions part is one of those little league things that you hear too often.

Hi, help with high school rules please. There’s a ton of stuff out on the web about this, but it seems to get squishy on what/when is a legitimate no-call on collisions. Scenario. R1 goes to steal 2B. Catcher throws down to 2B. Throw is off-line and pulls F5 into the base path. Runner, F5, and ball all arrive at same moment. Everyone’s head is down, and runner collides full-speed into fielder. A heads-up runner would have slid, but they were a couple steps before the bag FWIW. (Alas, broken collarbone ensure for F5). (Caveat: we are granting that the collision was not on purpose or malicious by the runner). Ball is dropped in the process: no tag. Call on field: safe, no call on collision, runner stays at 2B. So, is this a legitimate no-call? Is that scenario specified in the rules? I understand the rules differ depending on the status of the throw? I also understand that the runner has a right to his basepath. And also that a fielder has a right to make a play on a ball (either batted or thrown). This becomes a problem when they coincide. Related: is there a duty to avoid collisions in high school rules? Also, kind of related: is there a duty to provide a runner with access to a piece of the base? Is this only when the fielder is set up at the base? (This doesn’t really apply when they are two feet off the base, I guess). I have the same question about plays at 1B, where we see this more often that F1 is pulled into the basepath to get a ball. I do know that some coaches advise their players to run into the F1 on purpose at least some glancing contact (rather than pull up and avoid the bag which is their instinct), so they can draw an obstruction call. This seems wrong to me. Thanks

Well, on reflection, actually, yeah. They are. ☺️ ... of course that doesn't justify ridiculously inflated expectations or any of the coach/parental misconduct that is all too common.

Exactly, it is twelve year olds. The League's mission is to educate them, to teach the rules, to teach sportsmanship, and a foster a love of the game etc. To my mind, that means above all being transparent and taking advantage of learning opportunities with proactive communication. Tersely-worded non-explanations that sweep controversies and major mistakes under the rug are the opposite of that. I apologize if my passion on this point seems weird. In a way, I am agreeing with you, LL sometimes takes itself too seriously, and forgets its mission.

Alright so here I am back eight months later, where it's a new baseball season, chiming in to say I am still irritated at Little League about their lack of transparency. Here's their mission statement: Little League believes in the power of youth baseball and softball to teach life lessons that build stronger individuals and communities. And that incident is what they call a "teachable moment." Yet Little League has till refused to come out and explain what exactly happened, precisely what was done at the time, and what could have been done differently (Unless I am mistaken about which "life lesson" they are hoping to impart on the youth...). Specifically: Was there a review, if so, of what? What was the decision and ruling on that play? Could a protest have been lodged over the dead ball call? How do the rules figure into this situation? What should participants do in the future when an umpire calls foul? Should they trust it? It's a good thing I am no longer coaching, because I would instruct every player to keep running all the way to home after every foul ball call, and tell every fielder to play every single ball until there are at least four outs. Sidebar: it seems that increasingly lately, Major League announcers are openly griping about the officials' refusal to explain their discussions and decisions. Which continues to be a "star chamber' black box. Would it be too much to explain to the fans what they just decided...?

It is probably wise to coach pitchers to keep throwing to the batter, even if the PU stands up and signals time, to make sure he doesn't get charged with a balk due to conflicting signals from the U1, who remained in the ready position.

I'm sure it's tough and I have a lot of sympathy. The main source of my frustration is the lack of clarity after the opportunity to review and reflect on the field, and the subsequent silence by LLWS officials.

I am trying really really hard to hope that's not what they did. (That's why I have sunk my teeth in this this so hard.) Because while that might have made sense in the moment, after taking the time to review (and presumably on the headset with the league brass) it should have been undeniably obvious that the defense reacted to the dead ball call, and the only fair thing to do was work from the dead ball as starting point.

I wonder if the Manager lodged a protest. Inasmuch as none of us can figure out for certain what rule the umpires were following or how they applied it, I wouldn't know quite what to protest, but.... I don't know the tournament rules, but I bet he had to do it before the umpires left the field. My guess is he was too shell-shocked and was just as confused as we have been. (Which is why he's asking now for LLWS to open an eleventh seed.) It could be that the ruling was (1) conflicting calls on the field, but foul call killed the play, dead ball, (2) ball declared fair on official's review, (3) R1 awarded home on judgement. #2 and #3 are arguable, but not protestable. A two-sentence press release from the folks in Williamsport could clear it all up.

so, I found this: https://www.littleleague.org/news/little-league-expands-video-replay-u-s-little-league-baseball-regional-tournament-games-2016/