default
Member
After seeing a lot of posts lately about time limits, a couple of thoughts came to mind:
1) The first is for the folks that run ASA qualifying tournaments in Ohio.
It is my understanding that all qualifiers (ie: any tournament with national championship ramifications) must be played with ASA rules exactly as they appear in their rule book. Non-qualifiers are free to adopt, modify, ignore or change any rule as they see fit. Games that are part of championship play must be played under championship rules- that is, "by the book".
ASA rules state that if time limits are used, the time limit must be one hour and forty minutes. Yet, it seems that many qualifiers routinely use shorter time limits.
Have Ohio TD's been granted some sort of waiver in following this rule? Has the issue ever come up that using shorter time limits violates the ASA directive to use championship rules in championship play?
2) The second applies to any tournament or sanctioning body.
One of the biggest complaints about time limits is that they can lead to stalling tactics being used. Generally, we have two options with time limits: Drop dead (which people seem to universally hate), or; Finish the inning (which many seem to regard as the lesser of the two evils).
I have become aware of some leages and tournaments that have devised a third method for timed games. The goal of this method is to eliminate stalling and all of the headaches associated with it.
For example:
Instead of, say, a 1:20 time limit and finish the inning, how about a slightly shorter time limit (maybe 1:00 or 1:10). When the clock expires, finish the inning you are in, THEN play one more inning.
On the whole, games would last about the same amount of time, if you have adjusted the shorter time limit accordingly. You would still have games that might end in a tie and require the tie-breaker rule come into play, but that can happen no matter what time limit is used. You could still have games end under the run-ahead rule, just as you would in any other game.
The advantage of this format is that you totally eliminate any incentive for teams to use stalling tactics. Stalling becomes a non-issue, as a team gains nothing by it. A team cannot "freeze out" their opponent by sitting on a lead and waiting for the clock to expire, because no matter what happens another full inning will be played.
It would also end the silly things you can see when the clock is running down, a trailing team wants to get into the next inning as quickly as possible and they begin purposely making outs (leaving bases early, stepping on the plate to hit the ball, swinging at pitches over their head, etc.). They don't have to make a mockery of the game, because another full inning will always be played.
Time limits are a fact of life and probably won't be going away anytime soon. If we are forced to use them, why not tweak the format to eliminate some of the biggest problems associated with them?
1) The first is for the folks that run ASA qualifying tournaments in Ohio.
It is my understanding that all qualifiers (ie: any tournament with national championship ramifications) must be played with ASA rules exactly as they appear in their rule book. Non-qualifiers are free to adopt, modify, ignore or change any rule as they see fit. Games that are part of championship play must be played under championship rules- that is, "by the book".
ASA rules state that if time limits are used, the time limit must be one hour and forty minutes. Yet, it seems that many qualifiers routinely use shorter time limits.
Have Ohio TD's been granted some sort of waiver in following this rule? Has the issue ever come up that using shorter time limits violates the ASA directive to use championship rules in championship play?
2) The second applies to any tournament or sanctioning body.
One of the biggest complaints about time limits is that they can lead to stalling tactics being used. Generally, we have two options with time limits: Drop dead (which people seem to universally hate), or; Finish the inning (which many seem to regard as the lesser of the two evils).
I have become aware of some leages and tournaments that have devised a third method for timed games. The goal of this method is to eliminate stalling and all of the headaches associated with it.
For example:
Instead of, say, a 1:20 time limit and finish the inning, how about a slightly shorter time limit (maybe 1:00 or 1:10). When the clock expires, finish the inning you are in, THEN play one more inning.
On the whole, games would last about the same amount of time, if you have adjusted the shorter time limit accordingly. You would still have games that might end in a tie and require the tie-breaker rule come into play, but that can happen no matter what time limit is used. You could still have games end under the run-ahead rule, just as you would in any other game.
The advantage of this format is that you totally eliminate any incentive for teams to use stalling tactics. Stalling becomes a non-issue, as a team gains nothing by it. A team cannot "freeze out" their opponent by sitting on a lead and waiting for the clock to expire, because no matter what happens another full inning will be played.
It would also end the silly things you can see when the clock is running down, a trailing team wants to get into the next inning as quickly as possible and they begin purposely making outs (leaving bases early, stepping on the plate to hit the ball, swinging at pitches over their head, etc.). They don't have to make a mockery of the game, because another full inning will always be played.
Time limits are a fact of life and probably won't be going away anytime soon. If we are forced to use them, why not tweak the format to eliminate some of the biggest problems associated with them?
