Winning Isn't Everything -- It's the Only Thing.

[WJMorris3]

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/mino...nds_in_forfeit/

BRISTOL, Conn. -- A Vermont coach's failure to have one member of his team get enough time in the game gave the Portsmouth, N.H., Little League team a victory by virtue of forfeit Friday.

The manager's oversight turned a back-and-forth game -- complete with six home runs -- into a contest marred by confusion, chaos, tears, and two ejections.

The final score of the game had Portsmouth losing, 9-8, but the team was awarded a 6-0 forfeit victory and advanced to tomorrow's championship game because of Vermont's rules infraction.

The Colchester, Vt., manager, Denis Place, did not get one player in the game for at least three consecutive defensive outs and one at-bat -- a mandatory Little League rule.

In the bottom of the fifth inning, with the game tied, 7-7, Vermont scored twice on a Nate Frieberg two-out, two-run homer. Vermont held a 9-7 lead and seemingly stood three defensive outs away from a berth in the title game.

But Vermont substitute Adam Bentley hadn't received his required share of playing time.

Portsmouth recorded the fifth inning's third out before Bentley stepped to the plate. The only way for Vermont to have a chance to get Bentley an at-bat would be if Portsmouth made a comeback.

When Place realized this, he told his players what had happened during a huddle at the pitcher's mound once the first two outs were recorded in the top of the sixth.

Keegan Taylor started the inning with a double and later scored to cut the Portsmouth deficit to 9-8. Vermont attempted to allow Portsmouth to tie the game with obvious wild pitches and poor throws in the infield.

"Call me stupid, but I didn't know anything until they wouldn't pitch to my son," Portsmouth manager Mark McCauley said. "When they started to throw the ball into the screen, I was like, 'Whoa, wait a minute. This kid just got wild.' Then one of the [Portsmouth] parents yelled down right after -- or maybe it was simultaneous: 'They don't have a kid that's in.'

"Once it was obvious to me that they were playing [funny] by throwing the ball into the top of the screen, the administrators called both [managers] over and said, 'You will not make a mockery of this game.' "

When Vermont continued to try to help Portsmouth tie the game, Place and Vermont pitcher Zach Tandy were ejected.

Tandy's two blatant wild pitches pushed the potential tying run to third, but McCauley instructed his player not to advance any farther. The Portsmouth manager said he also told his players to swing at poor pitches and intentionally miss, to ensure the team could protest.

"It was crystal clear to me that [the Vermont manager] was not going to let the kids decide the outcome of the game," McCauley said. "He was going to cover his tail. He was doing what was in the best interest of his team. I had to do the same for my team."

Executing McCauley's orders, Stephen Hemming struck out to end the game.

McCauley then approached the umpires before they left the field and filed his protest. About two hours later, the rules committee in Williamsport, Pa., issued its ruling.

"I'll be drop-dead honest," said McCauley. "I would've rather walked off that field losing, 9-8, and been ignorant to the fact that we didn't do our job to check that book. I hate this. I absolutely hate this. I wish I wasn't here. I feel absolutely horrible about it.

"You know who I feel the worst for is those Vermont kids. You can't say anything to those kids. My heart breaks for those kids."

Players from both teams and Vermont's manager were unavailable for comment. But Tammi Tandy, a Vermont team parent, insisted Place made an honest mistake.

"Was it intentional? Absolutely not," Tandy said. "[The coaches are] in there crying their eyes out with these kids. It's just a bum deal. It's one of those freak things. You don't ever expect not to play a player. And then in the excitement, guess what happens."

Alright, things happen. While I understand that the rules are there for a reason, both coaches ought to be ashamed of themselves over what happened in that game, making a travesty of the game.

I know how it feels to have a result ripped from you on account of a coaching mistake. In a high school wrestling match, the team score was 35 - 29, in our favor, with me the only wrestler left. My opponent was the defending Region placewinner -- I had no chance. I gave it my best, but was pinned, leaving a 35 - 35 tie. However, the coach of the opposing team, upon inspection of our scorebook, noticed that district papers were not in it. He notified the referee, who penalized us one team point, losing 35 - 34.

Was it the proper call? Yes. But I talked to the ref after a match later in the year, and he told me he hated to have to do that.

As I remember, we missed the playoffs by one game. A tie there, we would have made it.

[Mac the Knife]

I can see following rules to their letter once kids reach, say, 15 or older, but to do something like this with Little Leaguers is just moronic.

These coaches - both of 'em - ought to be banned from having anything to do with Little League ever again: one for being stupid enough to fail to adhere to the participation rule, the other for just being an about enforcing it.

Then, they need to ditch the rule. Or at least modify it to "one at-bat or one out." Granted you'll have other managers who put in kids just for the last out of a game, but like these morons, they'd be weeded out, exposed, and hopefully made to look like the idiots they are.

[paynomind]

I can see following rules to their letter once kids reach, say, 15 or older, but to do something like this with Little Leaguers is just moronic.

These coaches - both of 'em - ought to be banned from having anything to do with Little League ever again:  one for being stupid enough to fail to adhere to the participation rule, the other for just being an  about enforcing it.

Then, they need to ditch the rule.  Or at least modify it to "one at-bat or one out."  Granted you'll have other  managers who put in kids just for the last out of a game, but like these morons, they'd be weeded out, exposed, and hopefully made to look like the idiots they are.

Word.

Except I'd suspend the Vermont coach three yeas or till his kid graduated high school, whichever is longer.

I'd not only fire the Porthmouth coach for being a dick and not letting the other team make up for thier mistake, but also have his picture posted around town witht he phrase "Bad Sport" on it.

One guy made a mistake and was stupid. The other guy saw an opportunity to get a win the cheap and easy way and messed with the game just as bad.

Jerk.

You know what? If a league has mandatory participation rules, it should not have playoffs. Period. If its all about every kid getting a chance, then it is not all about winning. And playoffs are all about winning.

If put forth: You get playoffs or mandatory participation, not both.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Well I'm confused.

Let me get this straight: Vermont didn't play of its players. The only way they could do that was by allowing Portsmouth to tie the game late so Vermont's final player could get it. That's then they started with the wild pitches and so on.

The coach of Portsmouth realized what was going on and allowed his team to lose. Then, he filed a protest and reversed that loss according to the rules of the game. Do I have this right so far?

What a mess. The first coach messed up and trying to give his team a chance to win the game by the rules, right? And the second coach capitalized on that and won on technicality.

That sucks.

[WJMorris3]

Well I'm confused.

Let me get this straight: Vermont didn't play of its players. The only way they could do that was by allowing Portsmouth to tie the game late so Vermont's final player could get it. That's then they started with the wild pitches and so on.

The coach of Portsmouth realized what was going on and allowed his team to lose. Then, he filed a protest and reversed that loss according to the rules of the game. Do I have this right so far?

What a mess. The first coach messed up and trying to give his team a chance to win the game by the rules, right? And the second coach capitalized on that and won on technicality.

That sucks.

You've pretty much summed up exactly what happened.

[slapshot]

The Vermont coach should have been paying attention. Getting his team to throw a lead just so his player could get an at bat is very shady and unsportsmanlike. Cheating to bypass a technicality.

The New Hampshire coach called him out on it, and played him at the same game. Instead of contacting a local director or administrator, he decided to take matters into his own hands, which is why this is a much bigger issue than it should have been.

Both coaches are grossly guilty of unsportsmanlike behavior, and should be punished. But the Vermont coach is the one who ended his players' season with carelessness. You gotta pay attention to your lineups, especially in tournament play.

I umpire Little League baseball, and I work a number of games during the tournaments. At the pregame meeting I make sure that both coaches understand the eligibility requirements of the players. I've heard of teams winning games by the slaughter/mercy rule (10+ run lead after 3 1/2 innings) that had to forfeit the game because they didn't pay attention to bench personnel to get the players in for their required time. I've also seen coaches put the eligible players in earlier than necessary (subs usually take place after the 3rd inning), because they know it's a blowout and want to make sure their players play.

It's really not hard. If the Vermont coach pays enough attention to what's going on, this situation is avoided.

Yes, it's very unfortunate to have your season end on an adminstrative technicality, instead of letting the play dictate it. But rules are rules, they are in place for a reason, and if you're dumb enough to break them, then you will have to answer for them.

[sean69]

Wait a sec... You have a mercy rule of 10+runs after 3 1/2 innings, but can't sub players in till the third? What a dumb rule, it makes no sence at all.

So your on a bad team getting your but kicked then you have to put in worse players? Better yet your team it kicking the crap out of a weaker team, then you have to sub out everyone so you risk a comeback and maybe a loss?

I agree with paynomind "You get playoffs or mantatory participation, not both."

[Luigi74]

I coached my nephew's PONY League team this year and in crazy situations you pretty much have to do what the Portsmouth coach did he sorta did it in a sleazy way but I feel he reached his breaking point with the mockery of the game and rules the Vermont coach was pulling. I had a situation in the same vain as this, in two seperate tight late season games against the Reds they batted out of order pretty blatantly the first time I caught it I told the ump per the rules and the other coach said it was a mistake the ump bought it and I didnt make a big stink, they did it again the next time we played and he used the same excuse the ump bought it but I made a big stink about this one and then all of the coaches & parents of that team got on my ass because I was trying to win cheap, let the kids play it on the field and so on but why should I let someone who is either a cheater, to dumb or to lazy to be a coach beat my team when I follow the rules, keep track of my batting order and such.

[slapshot]

Wait a sec... You have a mercy rule of 10+runs after 3 1/2 innings, but can't sub players in till the third? What a dumb rule, it makes no sence at all.

So your on a bad team getting your but kicked then you have to put in worse players? Better yet your team it kicking the crap out of a weaker team, then you have to sub out everyone so you risk a comeback and maybe a loss?

No...you misunderstood me on that one.

Subs usually take place between the 3rd and 4th inning of a Little League game. It's the exact middle, and it's just the easiest time to make substitutions. There's no rule that says subs have to take place at that time. In some leagues, subs will be made after every inning. But most of the time, it's between the 3rd and 4th inning.

In the game I was talking about, the winning team started putting in his subs between the 2nd and 3rd inning. By that point, the team was up by 10. The coach knew the other team (which had no subs, due to it being a vacation week) wasn't really going to come back and score many runs (or score enough to get under the 10-run rule), so he put in the rest of his players early.

Defensively, the players played at least 3 consecutive outs. And all got 3 or 4 times at bat. So both requirements were met.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I feel bad for the first coach. He recognized his error and tried his best to fix it before it was way too late. He probably felt like a complete heel telling his team that unless they did something , they would lose the game because of an oversight. However, that doesn't mean making a joke of the rules is okay.

I think a conference among the coaches and umpire would have been in order. I think the three men could have hashed out what was going on and possibly come up with an agreement that could have preserved the integrity of the game and not ruined the night for the kids involved.

The tit-for-tat technicality game guaranteed a poor result for everyone. A lesson could have been learned by the coaches all being bigger men and avoiding the win-at-all-costs mentality.

This comes from a permanent Little League right fielder who was much more interested in playing Nintendo and reading comic books than being anywhere near a baseball field. I normally never knew who won the game until the ride home. Needless to say, I was never involved in any kind of baseball playoff.

[BB61]

If I recall correctly, this mandatory play rule has only been around since the late 90's, and when it was first instituted, it was "one at bat or three defensive outs". That, honestly, should be the rule again. Every kid should get into the game, I agree, as it does even things out so that both teams aren't relying on their best players. But like Payno said, you can't have it both ways.

I coached, played, and umpired in a league where all players who showed up were put into the lineup. You'd have lineups of 11, 12, up to 15 kids. And each kid had to play at least three innings in the field. And that was it. It was up to the coaches to police themselves, but at least everyone played.

Honestly, I can't blame either coach. The Vermont coach tried to keep his team in the game, and was willing to take the chance that his team would lose it -- what would've happened if Portsmouth tied the game, and then won it in the 7th? Yes, it was his fault for letting it get to that point, and to be honest... you can't blame a guy for not wanting his kids to fail because of his mistake. His problem was that it was too obvious. You don't throw balls over the guys head -- you groove them meatballs and hope they scratch out a couple of runs and take your chances. Is that good sportsmanship? Probably not. But you're disrespecting your opponent a lot more if you blatantly show him up.

As for the Portsmouth coach? I can't blame him either. When it became obvious that the other team was trying to show them up, they threw it back in their faces. That's not bad sportsmanship -- that's standing up for yourself. Should that have been handled differently? Yes. But I can't blame him for what he did.

[Luigi74]

If I recall correctly, this mandatory play rule has only been around since the late 90's, and when it was first instituted, it was "one at bat or three defensive outs". That, honestly, should be the rule again. Every kid should get into the game, I agree, as it does even things out so that both teams aren't relying on their best players. But like Payno said, you can't have it both ways.

A kid should be able to get to play in the field and get an at bat in every game so the 1 at bat and in the field for 3 outs is a good rule, otherwise you would have coaches never letting their worst hitters have an at bat and that is wrong because you never give the kid a chance to get better.

[Herk]

Having mandatory play rule is fine in most little league games, however the LLWS and the tournaments leading up to it are made up of All-stars from that little league. Because of this there should be no rule on playing time.

[OnWis97]

After the VT coach's screw up, I do not fault him one bit for trying to let the NH team tie the game. Maybe he should have just told his defense to play badly.

The NH coach is the jerk, imo. He should have just said "wow, they screwed up and now we get another chance. Hope we can get them out and go to extras." Instead he fought to win on a forfeit.

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

Reminds me of a softball game I had a few years ago. It was a 9-team league. We were on a bye week when a make up date for a previous rain-out was told to the teams in person. When the makeup date came, our team somehow found out about it an hour before the game. We all raced to the field. We had 8 guys on time. Two more came five minutes late. The ump said that we should lose by forfeit but it was up to the other team. After hearing our story about how we were never told about the make up date, the other team chose to win by forfeit. Then they offered to play a "scrimmage" game. So we did (even though some of us wanted to walk away). We lost the scrimmage game (no umps, they got the mandatory 1-0 win), so in the end it did not matter. However, I think it's a pretty punk move to stand up and fight for your forfeit win.

[Mac the Knife]

Reminds me of a softball game I had a few years ago. It was a 9-team league. We were on a bye week when a make up date for a previous rain-out was told to the teams in person. When the makeup date came, our team somehow found out about it an hour before the game. We all raced to the field. We had 8 guys on time. Two more came five minutes late. The ump said that we should lose by forfeit but it was up to the other team. After hearing our story about how we were never told about the make up date, the other team chose to win by forfeit. Then they offered to play a "scrimmage" game. So we did (even though some of us wanted to walk away). We lost the scrimmage game (no umps, they got the mandatory 1-0 win), so in the end it did not matter. However, I think it's a pretty punk move to stand up and fight for your forfeit win.

That kind of stupid happens in Raleigh all the time, thanks to our Parks & Recreation Department.

[griff7774]

Having mandatory play rule is fine in most little league games, however the LLWS and the tournaments leading up to it are made up of All-stars from that little league. Because of this there should be no rule on playing time.

agreed

[ZBoyer]

This whole situation in itself doesn't make a lot of sense. In essence, it comes down to the fact that if you put in a defensive replacement for the end of the game and he doesn't get an at-bat, that team loses by forfeit?

I mean, say it's the bottom of the 4th inning and you're the home team with the lead. Your first batter is the number 2 batter in the order. A quick three-up, three-down inning followed by another means a replacement for the 8 or 9 hitters at the top of the 4th could, conceivably, not get an at-bat. If this happens, the game is forfeitted?

If that's true, that's ridiculous. That's essentially a kid playing half the game.

[Tazz013]

I'm not sure how Little League rules are today, but they still have balk and hit by pitch rules, right? Wouldn't it have been easier for the pitcher to balk in a run or hit batters until a run was forced in?

[slapshot]

There are no balks in Little League. In Little League, since the runners cannot leave the base until the ball reaches the plate, there are no pickoff attempts, and thus, no balks.

Any other non-baserunner balk situation is considered an illegal pitch, in which the pitcher is charged with a ball.

Hit-by-pitch rules still apply.

[Tazz013]

What would happen if they put a kid into the game but the kid got himself ejected (arguing with an umpire, fighting, namecalling, whatever) before he had a chance to bat? Would the team be forced to forefit because he didn't get to hit?