Using a non-active player

[Guest TheGoul]

In our Little League Minors game, the visiting team was up 11-4 in the top of the 6^th, the last inning. Our “house” rules state you need only 8 players to play. The visitors had exactly 8 players, but before they went out to take the field on defense to start the 6^th inning, one of their players, Johnson, refused to leave the bench. Johnson was hit on his hand in his previous at-bat, and he would not leave the dugout. The manager begged him to go out, stating that all he had to do was stand in the outfield and do nothing, but that if he didn’t take the field, their team would be forced to forfeit because they would then fall under the 8 player minimum. Johnson still refused. So, the manager then proclaimed, we are activating player “Smith” now so he can take the field. Player Smith was not in the original lineup submitted before the game, and his manager told the opposing manager and the umpire that he was “not active” for this game. Smith was in full uniform but had not played for the past 3 games because he was afraid to take an at-bat after getting drilled in the arm in the beginning of the season. So he had been relegated to just sitting on the bench with his teammates and watching. But now the manager wanted to “activate” him so he could go to the outfield to finish out the top of the 6^th. The umpire, who had no clue what was going on, allowed this to happen. Smith took his place in the outfield and became the 8^th player so his team would not have to forfeit. The team allowed three runs in the top of the 6^th, but escaped with an 11-7 win.

The opposing manager has filed a protest, stating that since the Visitors used an “illegal” or “non-active” player, they should be forced to forfeit the game, and/or because they only had 7 “legal” or “active” players in the field in the top of the 6^th, which is one less than the league-allowed minimum of 8 players. I believe there are two separate questions here: First, Little League rule 4.17 (2015 edition) states that, “if a team refuses to place 9 players on the field (or in our case 8), this shall NOT be grounds for automatic forfeiture but shall be referred to the Board of Directors for a decision.” So in that case, it appears that we have much leeway in deciding if the Visiting team should be allowed to keep the victory or not. However, the second question is, should the visitors be forced to forfeit simply because they used an “illegal” or “non-active” player in the field? And if so, then this would seem to make the first point moot. Any help would be appreciated, thanks!

[Mudisfun]

So you have a bunch of stuff happening due to the local league changing the GB rules. Wonder why LL is so demanding on local leagues not changing GB rules without approval? Does you league have approval from Williamsport for the change to 4.16 AND 4.17? If not then all of the above never happens but I digress...

In your case the manager knowingly failed to ensure that his player who was not in the game but suddenly was met minimum play requirements which assuming you are batting CBO is 1 at bat and 6 defensive outs in the 6 inning contest. There are specific penalties for this failure by the coach and as a BOD member I would push to severely penalize this coach who for all intents and purposes just wants to win a game. This violation is not an over site on his part but a deliberate act. Coach needs to keep things in perspective.

The rules do allow the Manager the discretion to let a player who arrives to the game site late to join or not join the game in progress since meeting minimum play requirements may become a big issue. However I do not believe the rules allow you to take a player who has been at the game the entire time as a non-player team member and suddenly make them a player. 

Once you fell below minimum players the umpire should have declared the game suspended and referred to the BOD. At that point the BOD decides what to do. They can chose to declare a forfeit which for a LL minors game would be understandable or they could direct the game to resume and finish at the next scheduled meeting assuming the player who did not want to play rejoins and you actually have 9 (or in your case 8) players.

If I was on your protest committee I would vote to uphold the protest by the opposing manager. In fact without approval for modifying 4.16/4.17 I would forfeit the game since the game should never have occurred in the first place. If there is a modification approval then I would forfeit the game at the point that the team could not place minimum players on the field. 

My $.02

 

 

 

[basejester]

Continuous batting order is mandatory in the minor division.

I don't see any explanation for why the player wasn't ever playing defense.

The manager is violating mandatory play. 

It's legal for a local league to make exception to 4.16 and 4.17 without explicit approval under some circumstances.  (The rulebook is broken in this respect -- 4.16 and 4.17 should reference those exceptions, which I can't find at the moment.  It's legal to have *rosters* less than 9.)

I would also uphold the protest, but not forfeit the game.  We have a mandatory play violation and several MYTAB/Batting out of order violations that were not properly appealed.) 

 

 

[Dbellyflop]

5 hours ago, basejester said:

It's legal for a local league to make exception to 4.16 and 4.17 without explicit approval under some circumstances.  (The rulebook is broken in this respect -- 4.16 and 4.17 should reference those exceptions, which I can't find at the moment.  It's legal to have *rosters* less than 9.)

Regulation III (a)

there will be no minimum or maximum established at the tball or minor league level... if the league elects to roster less than 9 players.... rules 4.16, 4.17 do not apply...

(paraphrased)

but i read that as the roster...... not line up......if the roster has more than 9 then they need 9 to continue play.

 

 play time issue with the OP. Smith now needs 6 outs and an at bat..... if he is having issues with batting, the player agent should be involved to help with coaching him up...(how has he just sat for 3 games????)

and lastly this is a minor division little league game....... Have fun and play ball.....

[FleasOf1000Camels]

Crap like this is primary reason I will NEVER work LL or any house league that makes up their own rules.

[LRZ]

LL minors is, what, 7-11 years old? I don't work LL, so I can't help the OP with his dilemma, but, seriously--kids not playing because they're afraid of getting hurt, resulting in protests and possible forfeits....you need lawyers, not coaches and umpires.

[stkjock]

11 minutes ago, LRZ said:

LL minors is, what, 7-11 years old? I don't work LL, so I can't help the OP with his dilemma, but, seriously--kids not playing because they're afraid of getting hurt, resulting in protests and possible forfeits....you need lawyers, not coaches and umpires.

usually its 9-10 y/o, however you can get 8s move up and 11s be held down

 

I agree the whole story is silly.

[basejester]

The minor "division", which in practice is often divided into multiple subdivisions, can have players as young as 5 and old as 11 (and even 12 with a waiver).  The local rule flavors (coach pitch, machine pitch, hybrid, kid pitch, etc.) and ages of those subdivision are decided locally, because that local league is trying to optimize the experience for the players they have.  It's an entirely different approach than that of a high school, which has a fixed structure and tries to find players that fit that structure.

And no, we're not going to the local association to get umpires for these games.