SackAttack
08-12-2006, 11:14 PM
http://sports.bostonherald.com/otherSports/view.bg?articleid=152545&format=&page=1
Here's the part that gets me.
“Call me stupid, but I didn’t know anything until they wouldn’t pitch to my son (Connor),” 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,”’ McCauley added.
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 kept his player from advancing 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 (Vermont’s 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.”
Without getting into how stupid the whole thing is to begin with (yes, yes it is), there are a couple things that pop out at me.
Now, call ME stupid, but it seems to me that McCauley's comment about "letting the kids decide the outcome of the game" is disingenuous at best.
The only way Vermont could have won that game is if Portsmouth staged a rally to tie the game in the first place. If Portsmouth loses without first tying the game, McCauley gets to protest because of Little League's "everybody plays" rule, and thus gets the forfeit. In short, there are three potential outcomes (ignoring extra innings): Portsmouth wins outright, loses by forfeit. Vermont ties the game, Portsmouth wins in the bottom of the 9th with no forfeiture necessary. Vermont ties the game and then gets the winning run(s) to boot.
Three outcomes, two favoring Portsmouth, and only one is "letting the kids decide the outcome."
Another thought; doing what's in the best interest of his team. So, what does that mean in the context of Vermont trying to let Portsmouth tie the game so their kid could hit? Is his team clearly inferior to Vermont and he felt that they had no chance to get any additional runs, so going the protest/forfeit route was in his team's best interests? His team wasn't capable of making Vermont pay for their shenanigans?
In "real life," people don't always play by the rules either. Is the lesson these kids need to learn "run to Poppa, he'll fix" when somebody else isn't being fair? Me, I kinda feel like teaching them to overcome artificial obstacles is probably going to be more beneficial to them in the long run.
I don't have an issue with the administration's decision here, FWIW. They made the right call. I'm just thinking that McCauley had the opportunity to impart some valuable lessons to his kids without necessarily calling in the administration, and failed to seize the day. Further, I admit I don't understand why his kids needed to swing at obviously bad pitches in order to preserve the protest route if that was the way they needed to go.
Here's the part that gets me.
“Call me stupid, but I didn’t know anything until they wouldn’t pitch to my son (Connor),” 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,”’ McCauley added.
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 kept his player from advancing 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 (Vermont’s 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.”
Without getting into how stupid the whole thing is to begin with (yes, yes it is), there are a couple things that pop out at me.
Now, call ME stupid, but it seems to me that McCauley's comment about "letting the kids decide the outcome of the game" is disingenuous at best.
The only way Vermont could have won that game is if Portsmouth staged a rally to tie the game in the first place. If Portsmouth loses without first tying the game, McCauley gets to protest because of Little League's "everybody plays" rule, and thus gets the forfeit. In short, there are three potential outcomes (ignoring extra innings): Portsmouth wins outright, loses by forfeit. Vermont ties the game, Portsmouth wins in the bottom of the 9th with no forfeiture necessary. Vermont ties the game and then gets the winning run(s) to boot.
Three outcomes, two favoring Portsmouth, and only one is "letting the kids decide the outcome."
Another thought; doing what's in the best interest of his team. So, what does that mean in the context of Vermont trying to let Portsmouth tie the game so their kid could hit? Is his team clearly inferior to Vermont and he felt that they had no chance to get any additional runs, so going the protest/forfeit route was in his team's best interests? His team wasn't capable of making Vermont pay for their shenanigans?
In "real life," people don't always play by the rules either. Is the lesson these kids need to learn "run to Poppa, he'll fix" when somebody else isn't being fair? Me, I kinda feel like teaching them to overcome artificial obstacles is probably going to be more beneficial to them in the long run.
I don't have an issue with the administration's decision here, FWIW. They made the right call. I'm just thinking that McCauley had the opportunity to impart some valuable lessons to his kids without necessarily calling in the administration, and failed to seize the day. Further, I admit I don't understand why his kids needed to swing at obviously bad pitches in order to preserve the protest route if that was the way they needed to go.