[IBL] A rule for discussion

[Mike Monostra]

I was one of the no votes on this originally but have had a change of heart
the last couple of seasons. As long as the rule is limited to long games,
cancelled games, suspended games and doubleheaders, I'd vote yes.

NJR Mike

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:44 AM Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:

> On May 1, 2018, at 11:01 AM, Doug Palmer <aeronutty43 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > first of all, Andrew just broke the Internet with "I agree with Doug
> > ....." LOL
> >
> > My proposal narrows the circumstances that the aforementioned vetoed
> rule
> > advocates.  If a team doesn't have enough eligible pitchers (no rested
> > starter like Andrew demonstrated or simply sheer numbers like I had)
> that
> > they should be allowed to get enough arms (or arm).  I don't know how
> it
> > violates the spirit of the game or of the rules by allowing a team to
> > have either an eligible starter or enough pitchers to compete.  Yes,
> > sometimes it's the stupidity of the manager that gets one into these
> > situations, but more times than not, it's the freak incidents like
> > weather, injuries or very, very long ballgames.
> >
> > I'd like to hear from the owners who voted no as to the reasoning and
> > whether or not the narrowing of the circumstances changes their mind
>
> FWIW, I'd point out that having the rule be based on the number of
> pitchers
> available doesn't necessarily narrow the circumstances where the rule
> could
> be applied (as compared to limiting specifically to double-headers,
> rained
> out partial games, and extra innings).  There are only a handful of
> series
> that have a rainout or extra-innings, whereas a "X pitchers available"
> rule
> could potentially be invoked anytime.
>
> Sean
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/fa07c3ec/attachment.html>