default
Member
I am not sure I understand the benefit of the +1
Here is an example:
Home team is batting, has the lead, and the time limit is approaching. If they play at a normal pace, they run the risk of making three quick outs before time expires. That would give the visitors another chance to bat again and perhaps take the lead. If they can waste time, the time limit will kick in while they're still at-bat. The game will be over and they will have won the game.
This scenario provides the home team with the incentive to stall. By stalling, they can essentially "take the bats out of the hands" of the other team, making it impossible for them to come back.
If one more inning is going to be played anyway (+1), then there is no incentive to employ stalling tactics. Doing so does not "take the bats out of the hands" of the opponent or eliminate the possibility of them coming back. A team has nothing to gain by stalling, thus the incentive to stall is eliminated.
We could go to 60 minutes, finish +1 but I think that would accomplish very little except in extremely rare cases.
I do agree that instances of stalling are fairly rare with the "finish the inning" format. Circumstances have to line up just right for a team to even be in a position to benefit by stalling in most games. In all of the tournaments I worked last year (about 12 tournaments, covering about 75 games) I can recall only one game where stalling was even an issue. As an umpire, I addressed it and we moved on.