Hamilton/Bruce baseball controversy

[AceLeroy]

but it DOES clearly say that if you have a pitcher that goes over the 17 inning limit in a week, they're not supposed to pitch, which I guess is another way of saying ineligible.

One thing I think all can agree on- the MHSAA needs to be a little more specific.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes they do need to be more specific. That is the point.

I'm not disputing that it CLEARLY says a pitcher who goes over 17 innings isn't supposed to pitch. But the punishment isn't clear , nor is the definition of ineligible.

Simply saying " they're not supposed to pitch , which I guess is another way of saying inelgible" doesn't hold water. You are making assumptions there.

" You Guess "?? That is supposed to hold up?

We know they aren't supposed to pitch more than 17 innings , but the definition of inelgible has to be stronger than "guessing". IT should be clear , and if it isn't , the fault lies with the way the rule is written. Still , You can't punish a team fairly if the rules are not clear.

 

[jackbaddawg]

nm

 

[excrementoccurs]

That Long Beach team was good, butOak Grove still knocked them out of the playoffs.

 

[Xenomorph]

Who is to say that the punishment should be a forfeit?

MHSAA will be the one to say what the punishment should be. And in this case I imagine it will be forfeiture.

 

[boomboommsu]

think of it this way, you could start a weekend series, and in Brett's first at-bat notice he is using an illegal bat. you could then watch him go 0 for 10 over 2 and a half games, and say nothing. Then, he gets a key hit near the end of game 3, and you come out and complain about the bat and get the hit turned into an out. that's not right, you shouldn't get to hold the knowledge of that infraction in your pocket like a get out of jailfree card, to trot out when you deem it most tactical. you should have to point out the illegal bat before it's used, or else you missed your chance to complain.

of course, you could say that's the price you pay for using an illegal bat, and that's legitimate. i just think the negative effect to the game is worse with the former.

just an explanation of my thoughts, i think we already agree.

as far as Bruce, i don't think you reverse what happened on the field absent a clear rule violation or precedent. fix the rules so it doesn't happen again, and move on.