Little League Softball

Did you not read and understand Rob T's post?

In the LL tournament Rules and Guidelines in the pool play section:

 

P. When a manager or coach instructs his/her players to play poorly for any reason, such as, but not limited to the following, such action may result in the manager’s removal by the Umpire-in-Chief, and/or removal of the manager, coach(es) and/or team from further tournament play. NOTE: This policy is not intended to prevent a manager from using lesser-skilled players more frequently if he or she wishes, even if such action may result in losing a game:

  1. losing a game to effect a particular outcome in a Pool Play Format tournament;

 

The coach not only violated the LL Pledge, he violated a rule.  Therefore, he DID "cheat".

 

As I understand it, Washington was going to be in the elimination rounds - just a question of what their seeding would be and who they would play.  He tried to work the system so a certain team (Iowa) would not be eligible for eliminations based on the defensive run ratio.  That IS a form of cheating according to the tournament rules.

 

From the dictionary:

 

Cheat:

 

verb (used with object)

verb (used without object)

       
       


This is where things get a little murky, at least according to the most recent article I read and linked to earlier in the thread. There was a mathematical possibility the Washington team would not have advanced if they lost a close game. It would have all boiled down to some mathematical ratio based on innings played and scores.My understanding is that he didn't want to chance the math, so they intentionally tried not to score a single run. LL is considering changing the tournament format in the future to prevent this from happening again.

"As I understand it, Washington was going to be in the elimination rounds - just a question of what their seeding would be and who they would play.  He tried to work the system so a certain team (Iowa) would not be eligible for eliminations based on the defensive run ratio.  That IS a form of cheating according to the tournament rules."

 

In the article posted earlier in this thread, the reason for attempting to not score runs had nothing to due with trying to eliminate Iowa.

 

The coach did what he did because of the way the rules were written.  I can't and won't fault him for that.  Write the rules better...

I could understand why people would say they "cheated".  I could understand the contrary too.  If you understand a pledge being a rule, then be it.  But based on the link that kandkfunk provided http://www.oregonlive.com/spor....html#incart_m-rpt-1, it definitely doesn't seem as black and white as Washington not wanting Iowa to get in, which initially what media kinda made it seem like.  It seems Washington wasn't a shoe-in for the semis.  From the article, it sounds like he may have tanked the game (and made sure they scored zero runs) to ensure they got in, not necessarily to prevent Iowa to get in.  If Washington won, they were in.  If they lost and scored at least one run, they were out.  Seems like he wanted to take the less challenging way in, lost scoring zero runs.  Nevertheless, he for sure did not follow the LL pledge and sucks most for those Washington kids.   

Had I been an assistant on that team I would have left the dugout. I wouldn't have wanted any part of teaching lack of integrity to twelve year olds. Part of youth sports is cultivating integrity. Winning at all costs and breaking the rules is not a value To be learned. What occurred is a sad commentary on the evolution of youth sports.

Isn't this the heart of the matter.

 

IMO the message is that in a grown up real world scenario the correct decision is ALWAYS better to get guaranteed results with as little or no risk as possible.  It is an outstanding lesson for people to learn.  Most never do and either take ridicules risks their entire lives or not enough.  This guy can run my business anytime.

With that said in the context of sports it is a stupid set of rules when a coach can have any hope of advancing with a loss and that TRYING to win could lead to a negative outcome.  Just insanity.

 

One other thing I haven't seen commented on here and based on the rules the other coach could have foiled this whole thing by merely walking 5 straight batters.  Wouldn't it have been a farce if he had waited until two outs in the 6th to pull that rabbit out of his hat?  Then you'd have both coaches doing something against the notion of trying to win because of dumbass rules.  What a joke that would have been. 

 

Queue the Bad News Bears music.   Da da da dum ....da da da dum....

 

 

 

"One other thing I haven't seen commented on here and based on the rules the other coach could have foiled this whole thing by merely walking 5 straight batters.  Wouldn't it have been a farce if he had waited until two outs in the 6th to pull that rabbit out of his hat?  Then you'd have both coaches doing something against the notion of trying to win because of dumbass rules.  What a joke that would have been. "

 

Never thought about that.

More stepping on plate to bunt?  Runners giving themselves up? Are auto-intentional walks allowed in LLSB? Probably plenty more options!!!!

Da da da dumb .....da da dumb....da da da dumb....

@kandkfunk:

 

You addressed the very issue that I was wondering about. And I'm not trying to justify what the coach did but did he get caught in a situation created by the rules that had not happened before or/nor no one saw coming? I'm thinking he was caught between a rock and a hard place on this one and ends up being the messenger in a situation that changes the rules for the better.

If I had been one of the assistants and knew before hand, I would have never even gone in the dugout..........

 

Play the game/tournament in the spirit it is meant to be played.  If the team is good enough they'll advance. 

 

Did the coach really think they would lose and get knocked out by a run ratio rule?  Winning takes that rule (admittedly not a good one) out of the equation.

 

Like ole Al Davis use to say, "Just win, baby!"

Two comments:

 

1. Ryno: I hear ya ... but you ain't gonna win here. Because ...

2. While you are absolutely right -- the way this tournament was set up is beyond ridiculous -- the Pledge rules.

 

After reading the OregonLive piece, I'm left wondering why in the heck the Washington team didn't just play to WIN!! That would've solved everything. But the coach was apparently afraid he'd lose -- and if that happened, he couldn't allow more than one run -- so he threw it.

 

Asinine tourney setup.

       
       

^^This. On the rational, scientist, quantative side of my brain, I get the coach's thought process in weighing the pros and cons given the silly tournament structure. On the parent side, who believes in sportsmanship and trying to the best of your ability, I have an issue with the conduct. I do wish the coach and all the girls on the West team the best.
BTW - that NC team won the tournament. Maybe the Washington coach was afraid to lose for a valid reason.

What happens when you play afraid to lose? You lose. 

Here is a factor I don't think I have seen yet.  Assuming the LL Softball pitching rules are similar or the same as Baseball, suppose this team had a strong Ace and a good #2 but things drop off from there?

 

That puts this coach in a position where holding his best two pitchers IS in the spirit of the LL Motto.  Because if he can find a way to advance and hold his two best pitchers back he is giving his team the best chance to win the tournament.

 

So there he sits, based on stupid rules, with an avenue to advance and still give his team its best shot to win the whole thing.  Only problem is it requires laying down which is contrary to everything that sports is. 

 

I'll bet if you asked the kids - We have a choice to lay down in this game and we are guaranteed to play in the Semi-Final with Mary (our best pitcher) starting the game or we can try to win and even if we do we might have to go home.

 

Every kid I ever knew would have said - lay down and advance I want to win the tournament but it sounds pretty stupid, are you sure that's right?

 

 

Really?  I coached my son from the time he was 5 until he got to HS on his local teams.  If I had even suggested doing something like this he would have likely chased me around the field with a bat until I promised I wouldn't do it. 

That's what happens when you worry too much about "tomorrow" when you need to concentrate on "today".   Every coach my son has ever had had a plan for pitching in a tournament (usually double elimination).  With very few exceptions they usually had to use the best pitcher available that day to ensure they would play the next day - especially if the team fell into the loser's bracket - there is no tomorrow if you don't win.  And yes, sometimes that meant the #4 or #5 pitcher might be starting a game deep into the tournament.  In single elimination tournaments they always had to use the best pitcher available.  There could not be any thought of losing - if you did, you were done.

Again - it circles back to if the coach had concentrated on winning the next game and not trying to "work" the system by losing and scoring no runs to ensure they had the proper run ratio in the tiebreaker.

 

The league didn't put him in this position - he chose to take that route.

 

Usually when someone tries to game the system it usually comes back to bite them.

 

There's a word for that - karma.

There's a word for that - karma.

 

Karma ran over the coach's dogma.

 

Von Moltke - No plan survives contact with the enemy.

 

Plan all you want.  But circumstances change and those that fail to adapt to change usually lose.  Old Chuck Darwin wrote a revolutionary theory to that effect anyway that seems to have gained a lot of traction over the years. 

 

As I noted the circumstances this coach found himself in are contrary to everything that is the core of sports which is competition and victory.  Any rule set that requires  any calculus on HOW you win or a potential outcome that a team can lose by winning is flawed at the least and most probably just insane.  IMO insane fits the bill.

 

As for Karma - Cannot argue that it didn't bite him as it played out.  Some justice in that I suppose.  He was too brazen to get away with it. 

 

Maybe he should have had Donald Trump's bankruptcy lawyer working for him.  That guys seems to know how to lose and still win.