Playoff Craziness

Wow, that is a pretty lame penalty for over-pitching a kid, if I am reading it right.

Even if it is a two game penalty for the player, that kid probably wouldn't be scheduled to pitch until the second game of the DH in the next round.

If it is a two game suspension for the coach, that sure doesn't provide much incentive for a coach to protect a kid's arm. (Sure, I will over-pitch you because you give me the best chance to win...I can afford the fine and will sit for two days.)

If the true goal of that rule is to protect kid's arms, then over-pitching a kid would result in an immediate forfeiture of the game in which he over-pitches.

(That actually happened a couple years ago here in VA in a regional championship game prior to pitch counts.  A team misunderstood the innings limit - the rule was pretty confusing - and they "over-pitched" a kid. Their game, and regional championship, was forfeited. In fact, I also believe a kid in VA had a no-hitter or perfect game forfeited because he pitched 1/3 of an inning too much.)

Wow, class move by the coach.  I guess my point is why would you have a penalty like that?  Makes absolutely no sense.....just pitch a kid 200 pitches if you're desperate to win a game and have $250 to spare??  Unbelievable

Nuke83 posted:

Story 2

In last night's semi final DH, Lee County faced Johns Creek and took game 1.  Lee County led game two heading to the bottom of the 7th by a 3-2 score.  Johns Creek tied the game and had bases loaded with two out.  A walk pushed what appeared to be the winning run across the plate. Lee County HC protested that the base runner from second never touched third, constituting abandonment and the third out, negating the go ahead run.

It's not really "abandonment" -- it's an appeal of a forced runner not touching the advance base.  And, yes, in FED, it's required that all runners do so.  If the umpires saw that the runner did not advance, AND the appeal was made before all the umpires let the field (I think those are the only two basis for the protest), the out call negating the run is correct.

Buzzard05 posted:

Wow, that is a pretty lame penalty for over-pitching a kid, if I am reading it right.

Even if it is a two game penalty for the player, that kid probably wouldn't be scheduled to pitch until the second game of the DH in the next round.

If it is a two game suspension for the coach, that sure doesn't provide much incentive for a coach to protect a kid's arm. (Sure, I will over-pitch you because you give me the best chance to win...I can afford the fine and will sit for two days.)

If the true goal of that rule is to protect kid's arms, then over-pitching a kid would result in an immediate forfeiture of the game in which he over-pitches.

(That actually happened a couple years ago here in VA in a regional championship game prior to pitch counts.  A team misunderstood the innings limit - the rule was pretty confusing - and they "over-pitched" a kid. Their game, and regional championship, was forfeited. In fact, I also believe a kid in VA had a no-hitter or perfect game forfeited because he pitched 1/3 of an inning too much.)

The suspension was for the coach, not player.

In all honesty, the kid wasn't over pitched and the coach was pretty savvy in knowing the rule and using to his team's advantage (and no, my kid isn't on any of the teams mentioned above).

Under the normal pitch count rules, the kid would have been allowed to throw exactly what he did, 42 pitches on a Wednesday, mandatory one day rest, then be eligible to throw 110 on Friday.

The rule that was violated was the 120 over three day that was put into place.  So by the originally written pitch count rules, the kid was never at risk (if you believe the counts set are sufficient to protect arms).

Had he gone any longer, then yes, shame on the coach.  It does highlight a need to put more teeth in the penalty.  I would add an additional rule that every pitch thrown in excess of limit be called a ball, period.

So the suspension of coach, the fine, and the walks so that nobody would have any incentive to exceed the count.

noumpere posted:

Nuke83 posted:

Story 2

In last night's semi final DH, Lee County faced Johns Creek and took game 1.  Lee County led game two heading to the bottom of the 7th by a 3-2 score.  Johns Creek tied the game and had bases loaded with two out.  A walk pushed what appeared to be the winning run across the plate. Lee County HC protested that the base runner from second never touched third, constituting abandonment and the third out, negating the go ahead run.

It's not really "abandonment" -- it's an appeal of a forced runner not touching the advance base.  And, yes, in FED, it's required that all runners do so.  If the umpires saw that the runner did not advance, AND the appeal was made before all the umpires let the field (I think those are the only two basis for the protest), the out call negating the run is correct.

The appeal will be heard tomorrow and both teams will have a representative present.  The abandonment comment came from a news article written on the game.

I agree that they got the ruling correct, but I'm not an official.  NFHS rules clearly states "When the winning run is scored in the last half inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases loaded which forces the runner on third base to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game over until all runners have advanced to the next base."  MLB rules only require batter and scoring runner to touch up.

The appeal was made before anyone left the field, so it would appear that all is in order.

They shouldn't be changing the pitching rules for play offs.  Having DHs is already overkill.  

So in one case, the COACH PURPOSELY violates a rule put in for the safety of the kids and there is essentially no penalty to his team....they get the win

Second case, nobody intentionally violated anything, a HS KID obviously wasn't aware of the rule.......and his team loses on an appeal of what is really kind of a stupid rule anyway.

Gotta love HS sports 

Nuke83 posted:

So playoffs have gotten down to the semi-finals with a few teams having swept to secure spots in the championship games and others needing a win tonight to secure their spot.  To that point, two really interesting stories coming out of Georgia.

To set the stage, each round of the playoffs in Georgia are a best of three series.  Day 1 being a DH and day 2 being the "if needed" game to decide who advances.

Story 1

First was second round in 7-A class (highest) where Mill Creek was facing defending State Champion Walton.  The two teams split the day 1 DH (Wednesday) when rain delays had pushed the "if" game back a day.  In second game of the DH, Mill Creek threw a pitcher in relief who clocked 42 pitches.  Under GHSA pitch count rules, this requires one day rest, which the rain delay provided.  The relief pitcher started Game 3 on the mound on Friday.

For the playoffs (this rule did not apply at any point during the regular season), GHSA changed the pitch count maximum from 110 pitches in a day to 120 pitches over a three day span.  Under the regular season rules, the MC pitcher would have had his one day rest and been allowed to throw 110 pitches without exceeding any regular pitch count rule, but with this new rule, he had only 78 pitches before he would be forced off the mound. 

So in a tight game, he reached his 78th pitch in the 5th inning at which point the HC refused to remove him from the game.  Under GHSA rule, the only penalty for this is a 2 game suspension and $250 fine which the coach accepted.  The pitcher went on to throw 110 pitches total in the complete game win and advance.  They subsequently advanced to the semi's and split last night (taking the first game 1-0 in 11 innings).  They play the "if" game tonight and will be in the championship with a win.

Story 2

In last night's semi final DH, Lee County faced Johns Creek and took game 1.  Lee County led game two heading to the bottom of the 7th by a 3-2 score.  Johns Creek tied the game and had bases loaded with two out.  A walk pushed what appeared to be the winning run across the plate. Lee County HC protested that the base runner from second never touched third, constituting abandonment and the third out, negating the go ahead run.

After a 20 minute delay, several phone calls to GHSA and some "rule-booking", the umpires overturned the call and ruled the out, taking the run off the board and taking the game into extra innings.  Lee County plated two in the top of the 8th to get the 5-3 win and sweep to advance.

Now the game outcome is under protest by Johns Creek claiming that the rules state that only the Batting Runner (player walked) and the third base runner (player scoring) are required to actually "touch up".  A quick check seems to me that this is the MLB rule and that NFHS requires all Runners "touch up"

http://www.walb.com/story/3545...e-in-bizarre-fashion

It's possible that the victory will be awarded to Mill Creek on appeal and they'll have to play the "if" game to settle who advances.  No idea when GHSA will rule (would guess today and play the "if" game as scheduled today if ruling goes Johns Creek way).

 

We were watching GC and thought that the MC pitcher only had 42 pitches as well but, I think the loophole is after the last comma in the final sentence below. The games were affected by weather. Here's the problem - what does "unless affected by weather delays" mean? What are the guidelines? There is absolutely no clarification. Maybe if Walton's coach had interpreted the rules the same way, he would have come back with his lefty on two days rest?

5. STATE TOURNAMENT – The format for all rounds will be a “Best of Three” series, with the first two games being played on the first day. During the State Tournament no pitcher shall be allowed to throw more than 120 pitches during a three-game series, unless scheduling is affected by weather delays.

Well that's different....120 pitches in a three game series over 2 days isn't the same as 120 pitches in a series "unless affected by weather".  As Hshuler said, what happens when as series is "affected by weather delays"....does it revert back to the original days of rest rule?  If so, then I think the coach was right and doesn't deserve suspension or fine, but it's not clear....so how do they make any kind of ruling?

I will say, while GA might be kind of ambiguous when it comes to writing rules....I tip my hat to them for the three game series.  I really wish they did that here in VA.  Here it is "one and done", which kind of sucks.  You can have a completely dominant season, have one hiccup and its over.

The dreaded 1 and Done. They still have 1 and Done in NC for the first 4 rounds. Then its 2 of 3 in the Eastern and Western finals then 2 of 3 in the championship. They actually seed teams now as well based on regular season records. It used to be predetermined conference match ups based on finish in the regular season.

Coach_May posted:

The dreaded 1 and Done. They still have 1 and Done in NC for the first 4 rounds. Then its 2 of 3 in the Eastern and Western finals then 2 of 3 in the championship. They actually seed teams now as well based on regular season records. It used to be predetermined conference match ups based on finish in the regular season.

Coach have you seen a governing body totally screw things up as much as the NCHSAA does?  I could provide a laundry list of things that they do that make no sense from an AD perspective.  Regional and State championship series are best out of three but for 1A and 2A schools you really never get a chance to develop a third pitcher because you only play twice a week overall

I have to ask. If Georgia determined a particular guideline is appropriate for the protection of pitchers, why change it for the post season? What has changed that makes a different guideline necessary? 

roothog66 posted:

I have to ask. If Georgia determined a particular guideline is appropriate for the protection of pitchers, why change it for the post season? What has changed that makes a different guideline necessary? 

I agree, however most teams play 3 games a week with one to four days between games.  Under the GHSA pitch count rule a player can throw  pitches and not require a day of rest, so if for some reason, day 1 played a single game and the DH (game 2 and "if" game) were played on day 2, a player could throw 35 pitches day one and come back and have their 110 pitches on day 2.  Or if they had to stretch the three games across three days, a pitcher could throw 35, 35, 110, so 180 over three days.  GHSA tried to think ahead to create the combined 120 to combat this.

roothog66 posted:

I have to ask. If Georgia determined a particular guideline is appropriate for the protection of pitchers, why change it for the post season? What has changed that makes a different guideline necessary? 

Great question! 

If you've set guidelines to protect the pitcher, the postseason shouldn't change anything. 

The postseason madness is what brought a lot of negative press last year. 

Nuke83 posted:

roothog66 posted:

I have to ask. If Georgia determined a particular guideline is appropriate for the protection of pitchers, why change it for the post season? What has changed that makes a different guideline necessary? 

I agree, however most teams play 3 games a week with one to four days between games.  Under the GHSA pitch count rule a player can throw  pitches and not require a day of rest, so if for some reason, day 1 played a single game and the DH (game 2 and "if" game) were played on day 2, a player could throw 35 pitches day one and come back and have their 110 pitches on day 2.  Or if they had to stretch the three games across three days, a pitcher could throw 35, 35, 110, so 180 over three days.  GHSA tried to think ahead to create the combined 120 to combat this.

Why not just make that part of the regular rule, then? I'm sure there are early season tourneys, rained out games rescheduled, etc. that bring around the same problem in the regular season occasionally.

Yea Nuke, I was at the Lee County game last night. That is where my son went to HS. It was the most bizarre thing I have ever seen. Even though it put our team in the finals, I do hate to get the win like that. But, Johns Creek had the same opportunity to score in the 8th as we did.  I will say that there were a few classless fans from JC. They were calling our team "cheaters" and saying the coach was classless to bring up the rule violation. Just had me shaking my head. It's a shame the way some parents act. Both games were well played and very evenly matched. It's a shame it ended the way it did and the parents acted the way they did. 

National Press today along with Zapruder-like film. When reading OP, I pictured the runner on 2b headed directly towards home to celebrate making it a no-brained based on rule. Man - that is playoff craziness. 

http://usatodayhss.com/?p=101212105

Coach_May posted:

The dreaded 1 and Done. They still have 1 and Done in NC for the first 4 rounds. Then its 2 of 3 in the Eastern and Western finals then 2 of 3 in the championship. They actually seed teams now as well based on regular season records. It used to be predetermined conference match ups based on finish in the regular season.

Western PA is one and done as well.  Even worse than that, we have 6 days between game 1 and game 2, and 4 days until game three, then one day between 3 and he finals-   so theoretically you can pitch your ace for the first three games straight.   Really takes the bats out of the equation-   yes I'm bitter as we didn't have a real ace- but had a pretty good offensive team but ran in to a dominant lefty in the first round.    I hate our format.

Bball34 posted:

National Press today along with Zapruder-like film. When reading OP, I pictured the runner on 2b headed directly towards home to celebrate making it a no-brained based on rule. Man - that is playoff craziness. 

http://usatodayhss.com/?p=101212105

 

Yeah, this is definitely different than what I had pictured. 

Bball34 posted:

National Press today along with Zapruder-like film. When reading OP, I pictured the runner on 2b headed directly towards home to celebrate making it a no-brained based on rule. Man - that is playoff craziness. 

http://usatodayhss.com/?p=101212105

 

Agreed. I also expected to see an exuberant kid running from second to home to celebrate.

Given the route that the runner took, I would say it would be hard to argue that he didn't touch the bag....otherwise, why take that route and not just run across the infield? 

Not to add fuel to the fire, but R3 looked to be way out of the base path on the way home...  Was that an acceptable path to take coming home?

Hah. Good catch. He made that wide break when pitcher began delivery. I will add fuel.. they should add rule to throw out anyone with a cowbell

Wow, same here.....definitely what I thought happened....I thought the guy at second had a lead, took a secondary then ran straight to home or to wherever the dogpile had started....I find it hard to believe that he didn't touch 3rd considering he looks to have gone directly over it.  Hard to tell what the 3rd base ump was watching....if he was watching anything at that point.  He is the only guy that can make that call, home plate ump has the plate, which is the game winning run, so I'm assuming he was watching that...and 1B ump has the batter.  He must have been awfully sure the kid missed it....especially after seeing the video.  Have they ruled on the appeal yet?

Buckeye 2015 posted:

Wow, same here.....definitely what I thought happened....I thought the guy at second had a lead, took a secondary then ran straight to home or to wherever the dogpile had started....I find it hard to believe that he didn't touch 3rd considering he looks to have gone directly over it.  Hard to tell what the 3rd base ump was watching....if he was watching anything at that point.  He is the only guy that can make that call, home plate ump has the plate, which is the game winning run, so I'm assuming he was watching that...and 1B ump has the batter.  He must have been awfully sure the kid missed it....especially after seeing the video.  Have they ruled on the appeal yet?

I can't imagine in my wildest dreams this gets overturned on appeal. It's a judgment call. Maybe a bad one, but, nevertheless...

FriarFred posted:

Not to add fuel to the fire, but R3 looked to be way out of the base path on the way home...  Was that an acceptable path to take coming home?

A runner can run wherever he wants as long as there's not a play being attempted on him.

roothog66 posted:

Buckeye 2015 posted:

Wow, same here.....definitely what I thought happened....I thought the guy at second had a lead, took a secondary then ran straight to home or to wherever the dogpile had started....I find it hard to believe that he didn't touch 3rd considering he looks to have gone directly over it.  Hard to tell what the 3rd base ump was watching....if he was watching anything at that point.  He is the only guy that can make that call, home plate ump has the plate, which is the game winning run, so I'm assuming he was watching that...and 1B ump has the batter.  He must have been awfully sure the kid missed it....especially after seeing the video.  Have they ruled on the appeal yet?

I can't imagine in my wildest dreams this gets overturned on appeal. It's a judgment call. Maybe a bad one, but, nevertheless...

The appeal isn't whether the runner touched third or not.  It has already been ruled that that is a judgement call and that video is never allowed in a review.  The umpire ruled the runner didn't touch third.

The appeal is whether the rule required him to or not.

The appeal was heard this morning and Johns Creek lost on a 3-1 vote by the four member panel.  Johns Creek has now appealed to the 9 member board of trustees who will consider the appeal Monday morning.  Had the vote been unanimous, no further appeal would have been allowed.

Interesting side note, and possible why this made national media so quickly, one of the Johns Creek player has a sister who is on camera talent for a local Atlanta news program.  She's been very active on social media on this and her station picked up the story immediately.

Will be interesting to see what comes of Monday.  If they win their appeal, there would be a third game required to decide who advances.  At that point, all pitchers will be available to throw unless they come up with yet another rule change to get involved with that as well.

Nuke83 posted:

roothog66 posted:

Buckeye 2015 posted:

Wow, same here.....definitely what I thought happened....I thought the guy at second had a lead, took a secondary then ran straight to home or to wherever the dogpile had started....I find it hard to believe that he didn't touch 3rd considering he looks to have gone directly over it.  Hard to tell what the 3rd base ump was watching....if he was watching anything at that point.  He is the only guy that can make that call, home plate ump has the plate, which is the game winning run, so I'm assuming he was watching that...and 1B ump has the batter.  He must have been awfully sure the kid missed it....especially after seeing the video.  Have they ruled on the appeal yet?

I can't imagine in my wildest dreams this gets overturned on appeal. It's a judgment call. Maybe a bad one, but, nevertheless...

The appeal isn't whether the runner touched third or not.  It has already been ruled that that is a judgement call and that video is never allowed in a review.  The umpire ruled the runner didn't touch third.

The appeal is whether the rule required him to or not.

 

That was exactly my point. My question is how did one person actually vote for overturning it. That person either didn't know the rules or blatantly ignored them. The call looks to be possible B.S., but still, it's a judgment call.

roothog66 posted:

Nuke83 posted:

roothog66 posted:

Buckeye 2015 posted:

Wow, same here.....definitely what I thought happened....I thought the guy at second had a lead, took a secondary then ran straight to home or to wherever the dogpile had started....I find it hard to believe that he didn't touch 3rd considering he looks to have gone directly over it.  Hard to tell what the 3rd base ump was watching....if he was watching anything at that point.  He is the only guy that can make that call, home plate ump has the plate, which is the game winning run, so I'm assuming he was watching that...and 1B ump has the batter.  He must have been awfully sure the kid missed it....especially after seeing the video.  Have they ruled on the appeal yet?

I can't imagine in my wildest dreams this gets overturned on appeal. It's a judgment call. Maybe a bad one, but, nevertheless...

The appeal isn't whether the runner touched third or not.  It has already been ruled that that is a judgement call and that video is never allowed in a review.  The umpire ruled the runner didn't touch third.

The appeal is whether the rule required him to or not.

 

That was exactly my point. My question is how did one person actually vote for overturning it. That person either didn't know the rules or blatantly ignored them. The call looks to be possible B.S., but still, it's a judgment call.

The other thing...the only substantive evidence we have to see whether he touched third or not is the disallowed video...which contradicts JC's appeal that the umpires had ruled the game over and the runners had stopped running. 

If this was done in true appellate fashion, this argument is toast. But it's not.

Whoo, Boy! I was just checking out a Twitter feed on this and there are a lot of upset people. Really distorting the issue was a tweet from Fox 5 in Atlanta that used a graphic that compared the high school rule to the OBR rule on who has to safely touch the next base. They cropped out the FED half of the graphic and made the argument based on OBR rules. Someone busted them on it, but most of the people involved still don't get what's going on and many more don't understand why the GHSA can't just look at the video and overturn the call on the field.

So, what kind of fall showcase ball is available in the Golden Isles area?  You know, if someone just happened to maybe take a job there and has a 2018 looking to play after the summer season.   Asking for a friend. ��

So, the second appeal overturned the original decision and first appeal and overturned the victory of Lee County over Johns Creek.  Johns Creek has been awarded the win and split, so a third and deciding game will be played Wednesday with the winner advancing to the championship series vs. Pope.  They've moved the championship series to being Friday (was scheduled to start Wednesday).  Definitely affects Pope who hasn't played since they clinched their spot last Wednesday, and especially whomever advances will be at a great disadvantage since their ace's will likely be burned on the semi-final game 3.

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/sports/255717653-story

Wow! While I think the original call was B.S., I think overturning it is even more  B.S. That was clearly a judgment call and completely by the book. 

They haven't given grounds, but it appears the school's last appeal was based on the idea that the umpires had called it a ball game. Two problems: 1) that doesn't matter as long as they haven't left the field and 2) the original appeal was based on a bad rule set and that appeal board didn't get to rule on this new reasoning.

And when JC wins game 3 illegitimately, then the GHSA gets sued again...

And worth noting, although it may have no bearing on the board's decision and is purely my own speculation.  Johns Creek is in an EXTREMELY affluent area of Atlanta (i.e., most Braves, Hawks, Falcons, CEO's, etc., etc., live there).  Lee County is rural South Georgia.  Wonder if GHSA had any fear of potential courtroom escalation that might have ensued if they had upheld.  Unlikely that Lee County has the incentive and means to pursue it that far.  No doubt that JC has the pockets to.

no offense Root, but apparently not.  Someone's feelings were probably hurt...so they get a "do-over".

I don't think it had to do with feelings, and I don't think it had to do with the area the teams are from.  It boiled down to did the umps make a mistake that changed the result of the game, they are human, it happens.  At the end of the day I think a 3rd game was the best compromise for all involved however, I sincerely doubt that group of umps will see the field for the rest of THIS year.

CaCO3Girl posted:

I don't think it had to do with feelings, and I don't think it had to do with the area the teams are from.  It boiled down to did the umps make a mistake that changed the result of the game, they are human, it happens.  At the end of the day I think a 3rd game was the best compromise for all involved however, I sincerely doubt that group of umps will see the field for the rest of THIS year.

There was no mistake (maybe judgment, but that's not protestable.) The umpires applied the rule correctly, and are getting thrown under the bus.

The GHSA has violated its own policy in this.

I could see this going to court and an injunction being issued. Even private organizations don't get to completely ignore their own rules when it harms others. This could get bigger, real quick.

Matt is 100% correct. There is NO WAY this should have been overturned. It was a judgment call based on HS rules. The MLB rules don't apply here. It blows my mind how people do but understand the rule book. You can't pick and choose which rules you think should be applied. And yes I DO believe politics came into play this morning. I don't have a dog in this fight, but GHSA opened a can of worms. The biggest problem is the winner will be screwed due to finals on Friday. There is no way they can navigate pitching a game on Wednesday and expect to compete at their best with another series starting 2 days later. 

Matt13 posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

I don't think it had to do with feelings, and I don't think it had to do with the area the teams are from.  It boiled down to did the umps make a mistake that changed the result of the game, they are human, it happens.  At the end of the day I think a 3rd game was the best compromise for all involved however, I sincerely doubt that group of umps will see the field for the rest of THIS year.

There was no mistake (maybe judgment, but that's not protestable.) The umpires applied the rule correctly, and are getting thrown under the bus.

The GHSA has violated its own policy in this.

From what I have read John's Creek didn't want to go into the finals with people questioning if they should be there.  They wanted game three as much as Lee did. The video is compelling and the reason Lee said it didn't matter is also compelling, according to Lee's coach the HP umpire yelled "ballgame"...while he thinks his player touched third he's saying it shouldn't have mattered.

CaCO3Girl posted:

Matt13 posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

I don't think it had to do with feelings, and I don't think it had to do with the area the teams are from.  It boiled down to did the umps make a mistake that changed the result of the game, they are human, it happens.  At the end of the day I think a 3rd game was the best compromise for all involved however, I sincerely doubt that group of umps will see the field for the rest of THIS year.

There was no mistake (maybe judgment, but that's not protestable.) The umpires applied the rule correctly, and are getting thrown under the bus.

The GHSA has violated its own policy in this.

From what I have read John's Creek didn't want to go into the finals with people questioning if they should be there.  They wanted game three as much as Lee did. The video is compelling and the reason Lee said it didn't matter is also compelling, according to Lee's coach the HP umpire yelled "ballgame"...while he thinks his player touched third he's saying it shouldn't have mattered.

??  I think you have your teams backward.

Also, irrelevant whether HP ump called ballgame or not.  Appeal limit on a game ending call expires when the umpires LEAVE the field, not whether one of them called ballgame or not.  The appeal was made within the allowed timeframe.

Nuke is correct. 

CaCO3Girl posted:

according to Lee's coach the HP umpire yelled "ballgame"...

There's no mechanic to do that, it doesn't mean anything if it's done, and here's one reason not to do it.

noumpere posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

according to Lee's coach the HP umpire yelled "ballgame"...

There's no mechanic to do that, it doesn't mean anything if it's done, and here's one reason not to do it.

A person quoted on another discussion board that it's actually a rule in GA that the ump can't call the game unless all runners have advanced to their next base.

and yes, got the schools backwards but you get my drift.

CaCO3Girl posted:

noumpere posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

according to Lee's coach the HP umpire yelled "ballgame"...

There's no mechanic to do that, it doesn't mean anything if it's done, and here's one reason not to do it.

A person quoted on another discussion board that it's actually a rule in GA that the ump can't call the game unless all runners have advanced to their next base.

and yes, got the schools backwards but you get my drift.

IT's true that all the runners are required to advance in HS ball (that's NOT true in OBR).

But, the umpire shouldn't announce, "Ballgame" when the game is over -- because, as we see here, it might not really be over.

Just watch the run score, the other runners advance (or not) and leave the field.

Here's a great article on the topic.  Amazing that they admit that they're overturning a judgement call (5 days after the incident) and that is sets an "uneasy precedent".  That's an understatement.

What's really amazing to me is the thought process.  

“If it’s the second inning of a baseball game or second quarter of a football game, you’ve got plenty of time to overcome a bad call,’’ White said. ‘’This situation is a different. It’s a semifinal state playoff game in baseball, and it’s the end of the game. I just see that differently. That had lot to do with swaying my opinion.”  

So basically saying that the importance of getting calls right vary based on when in the game the calls occur.  This guy is a clown.

http://highschoolsports.blog.a...game-3-on-wednesday/

CONTROVERSIAL VIDEO: Did Johns Creek's Jared White touch 3rd base? Umps said no, allowing Lee Co to later eliminate the Glads.@jcgladiators pic.twitter.com/z4j9s8nayB

— High5Sports (@High5Sports) May 18, 2017

Cowbells, really?

That is what should have been appealed. 

 Seriously, i hope Game 3 is a good one and the kids get some closure, Pope will be tough regardless of who had pitching etc. I know Jeff and Daryl and they always produce solid baseball teams who can flat out play the game. 

Good luck to all involved.

Shoveit4Ks posted:

CONTROVERSIAL VIDEO: Did Johns Creek's Jared White touch 3rd base? Umps said no, allowing Lee Co to later eliminate the Glads.@jcgladiators pic.twitter.com/z4j9s8nayB

— High5Sports (@High5Sports) May 18, 2017

 

Cowbells, really?

That is what should have been appealed. 

 

 Seriously, i hope Game 3 is a good one and the kids get some closure, Pope will be tough regardless of who had pitching etc. I know Jeff and Daryl and they always produce solid baseball teams who can flat out play the game. 

Good luck to all involved.

I have to say, I wasn't sad to hear that Pope didn't make the jump to 7A with many of the teams they played last year! 

They said that video is not allowed in reviewing calls. So, how did this guy know that the umps missed the call?  

Secondly, overturning the rules because they inconvenienced someone?  Really?  Are we going to have rules or not?  If a rule is wrong or bad, you get rid of it through deliberation, not capriciously to favor one party.

This appears to be very bad practice. 

Shoveit4Ks posted:

CONTROVERSIAL VIDEO: Did Johns Creek's Jared White touch 3rd base? Umps said no, allowing Lee Co to later eliminate the Glads.@jcgladiators pic.twitter.com/z4j9s8nayB

— High5Sports (@High5Sports) May 18, 2017

 

Cowbells, really?

That is what should have been appealed. 

 

 Seriously, i hope Game 3 is a good one and the kids get some closure, Pope will be tough regardless of who had pitching etc. I know Jeff and Daryl and they always produce solid baseball teams who can flat out play the game. 

Good luck to all involved.

And not just cow bells, but tee-ball, snack mommy, custom cow bells.

https://twitter.com/NatalieFFO...s/864289258420490240

Sadly cow bells are all the rage here.

The decision to play a 3rd game aside I have not seen a ruling (or rule) regarding how the pitching is affected. With the appeals process and span of days since the 2nd game was played I would think at least two different pitching scenarios are possible:

1) enough days have elapsed to reset all pitchers pitch counts so everyone starts fresh and both teams can start their aces in game 3.

2) the 3rd game is treated as if it were being played the day after the double header and all pitch counts for pitchers in game 1 and 2 stand (with the exception of the 8th inning in game 2 that is not official now).  

If it is option 1 and both throw their aces, and let's say throw more than 80 pitches each, are either eligible to throw starting Friday in the Finals or do they require 3 days rest?

If this has been addressed I missed it.

There has been no mention of any new rule on pitching, so you'd assume that both teams have everyone available to throw since it'll be 7 days since they last played.  The bigger issue is the impact on the next series where Pope, on 9 days rest, will face on of the two teams on one day rest.  Clearly a HUGE disadvantage for whichever team advances.

As for the three days rest comment, that's a moot point as GHSA saw fit to completely change all the pitch count rules for playoffs and the only pitch count is no more than 120 pitches in a three day window.  That's what allowed Woodstock to throw a pitcher 96 pitches on Wednesday and come back and throw 24 the very next night in a closer appearance.

Add to the mix that rain is in the forecast all week here, who knows when game 3 will be played and subsequently when the championship series might start.

Nuke83 posted:

There has been no mention of any new rule on pitching, so you'd assume that both teams have everyone available to throw since it'll be 7 days since they last played.  The bigger issue is the impact on the next series where Pope, on 9 days rest, will face on of the two teams on one day rest.  Clearly a HUGE disadvantage for whichever team advances.

As for the three days rest comment, that's a moot point as GHSA saw fit to completely change all the pitch count rules for playoffs and the only pitch count is no more than 120 pitches in a three day window.  That's what allowed Woodstock to throw a pitcher 96 pitches on Wednesday and come back and throw 24 the very next night in a closer appearance.

Add to the mix that rain is in the forecast all week here, who knows when game 3 will be played and subsequently when the championship series might start.

You sure about the Nuke?  I thought playoff pitching rules trump all, that is 120 per series per pitcher....no mention if the "series" lasted 3 days as intended or 15 days. 7 day rest may be irrelevant?

CaCO3Girl posted:

Nuke83 posted:

There has been no mention of any new rule on pitching, so you'd assume that both teams have everyone available to throw since it'll be 7 days since they last played.  The bigger issue is the impact on the next series where Pope, on 9 days rest, will face on of the two teams on one day rest.  Clearly a HUGE disadvantage for whichever team advances.

As for the three days rest comment, that's a moot point as GHSA saw fit to completely change all the pitch count rules for playoffs and the only pitch count is no more than 120 pitches in a three day window.  That's what allowed Woodstock to throw a pitcher 96 pitches on Wednesday and come back and throw 24 the very next night in a closer appearance.

Add to the mix that rain is in the forecast all week here, who knows when game 3 will be played and subsequently when the championship series might start.

You sure about the Nuke?  I thought playoff pitching rules trump all, that is 120 per series per pitcher....no mention if the "series" lasted 3 days as intended or 15 days. 7 day rest may be irrelevant?

The "rule" that was sent out did state a three game series, but it was also ambiguous in that it mentioned weather affected games, but made no further stipulation of what that meant.

At this point, with GHSA, I think we should see what happens, who protests, and then how many times the board votes before they declare a winner in any game going forward.

I see what you mean....it is oddly worded.  Here it is for the rest of the folks:

"State Tournament - The format for all rounds will be a “best-of-three” series with the first two games being played on the first day. During the State Tournament, no pitcher shall be allowed to throw more than 120 pitches over a three-game series (unless the schedule is affected by weather delays)."

Right...I'm not in GA, but I read it as 120 in a 3 game series (meaning if it went 3 games over 2 days).....the "unless weather" part of it is kind of open ended......I take it to mean that if it goes more than 2 days, the 120 rule is not valid, but what rule do they go to?   Sure seems like someone didn't think this thru when they wrote the rules....had to think rain issues would come up

Interesting.  Many times we hear how common sense should "sometimes" come into play over ruling the rule set. Yet, when it does just as many folks are upset.  

Going down the common sense road has the potential to get out of control very quickly.  Everyone has the ability to video with their phone.  How many judgement calls will be debated with video evidence?  "Under the argument that It is a really important game, let's use common sense and allow the video to overturn the outcome."

I think they made the wrong decission.  The umps called it correctly.  Nothing to overturn.  He very well could have missed third.  The video is not conclusive.  The fact the coach requested the appeal tells me he more than likely missed the bag.  

Buckeye 2015 posted:

Right...I'm not in GA, but I read it as 120 in a 3 game series (meaning if it went 3 games over 2 days).....the "unless weather" part of it is kind of open ended......I take it to mean that if it goes more than 2 days, the 120 rule is not valid, but what rule do they go to?   Sure seems like someone didn't think this thru when they wrote the rules....had to think rain issues would come up

The "normal" pitching rules are:

Pitching restrictions:
(a) Maximum Pitches in One Game: Varsity 110; sub-varsity 90.
(b) Required Rest Periods:

Varsity/Sub-Varsity
1-35 Pitches 0 Days/ 1-24 Pitches 0 Days
36-60 Pitches 1 Day/ 25-44 Pitches 1 Day
61-85 Pitches 2 Days/ 45-64 Pitches 2 Days
86-110 Pitches 3 Days/ 65-90 Pitches 3 Days

Note: A pitcher shall not throw more than 110 pitches (90 for sub-varsity) in a single game or cumulative over a two-day period. A pitcher shall not pitch more than two consecutive days regardless of the pitch count, at which time a minimum 1-day rest period is required. Doubleheaders are considered two separate games and single-game pitch count limitations are in effect. All other rest periods are based on the total pitches thrown.

(c) A pitcher at any level (varsity or sub-varsity) shall be allowed to finish the batter when the pitch count limit is reached during an at bat, but must be replaced immediately when that at-bat ends.
(d) A “Day of Rest” is defined as a calendar day. Example: a varsity level pitcher who reaches the 110-pitch limit on a Tuesday would not be allowed to pitch again until Saturday.
(e) Tabulation of pitch count - This process will be done by an individual registered with a GHSA local association. This official recorder will be paid a one-half game fee plus travel. It will then be the responsibility of the recorder to enter the pitch count information for each school following the completion of the game into the GHSA MIS system.

Common sense is malleable and subjective in times of stress and distress.  Such is why we put into place carefully deliberated rules.  They help to guide us through emotional times and give us some parameters with which to work.

Glad nothing controversial happens in this sport!