is there a rule that differentiates between when a game will be 'suspended' or restarted?
Motivation for my question:
My kid plays in a "Cal Ripken" league that uses the MLB baseball rulebook with a few exceptions that 10 and under adopt. (like no leading off, and dropped 3rd strike does NOT allow batter to advance)
One team is winning after 2 complete innings by a score of 14 to 0. The games have a 1 hr 45 min time limit and this game was 1 hr and 19 minutes in.
Due to weather that was impending, (but not there yet), the commissioner looking out for the safety of everyone decided that the game needed to be stopped.
But he cancelled the game. Not suspended. Cancelled. Effectively giving the team with the deficit the advantage on the restart when the game is ,,made up.
I dont give one rats *** what the rules say. My question is the motivation of why a rule would be in place to determine when a game that has already started is restarted or resumed.
Why would a game, if going to be made up, would not resume from where it left off? What advantage does the team who had earned the lead on the field of play, get?
Yes I'm biased. Yes my kid was playing the game of his life. But yes, if he'd been losing, it would have still made more sense to suspend the game rather than restart in my opinion to prevent the obvious punishment to the team leading.
If the game is permanently cancelled then so be it. Not talking bout that. THis is restart vs continuation.
Someone give me a rational reason it shouldnt be continued rather than restarted.
Motivation for my question:
My kid plays in a "Cal Ripken" league that uses the MLB baseball rulebook with a few exceptions that 10 and under adopt. (like no leading off, and dropped 3rd strike does NOT allow batter to advance)
One team is winning after 2 complete innings by a score of 14 to 0. The games have a 1 hr 45 min time limit and this game was 1 hr and 19 minutes in.
Due to weather that was impending, (but not there yet), the commissioner looking out for the safety of everyone decided that the game needed to be stopped.
But he cancelled the game. Not suspended. Cancelled. Effectively giving the team with the deficit the advantage on the restart when the game is ,,made up.
I dont give one rats *** what the rules say. My question is the motivation of why a rule would be in place to determine when a game that has already started is restarted or resumed.
Why would a game, if going to be made up, would not resume from where it left off? What advantage does the team who had earned the lead on the field of play, get?
Yes I'm biased. Yes my kid was playing the game of his life. But yes, if he'd been losing, it would have still made more sense to suspend the game rather than restart in my opinion to prevent the obvious punishment to the team leading.
If the game is permanently cancelled then so be it. Not talking bout that. THis is restart vs continuation.
Someone give me a rational reason it shouldnt be continued rather than restarted.