Chez Chesler

I'd meant to post on this before, but I've been busy, and as usual the Volokh Conspiracy blawg beat me too it.  They repost an item from the Ethics Scoreboard, asking:

On August 11 in Bristol, Conn., a Little League team from Colchester, Vt., only had to retire its Portsmouth, N.H. opposition in the top of the sixth inning (Little League games are six innings rather than nine) to win the game 9-8 and move on to the New England regional championship game.

But there was a problem. The Vermont team had made its third out in its half of the fifth inning before player Adam Bentley got to the plate. The Little League has a strict rule that requires every player to bat at least once a game, and the penalty for violating it is forfeit. Vermont's coach Denis Place realized, to his horror, that even though his team had the lead entering the last inning the only way it could avoid losing by forfeit was for Bentley to get an at bat. For that to happen, the New Hampshire team would have to tie the score or take the lead, requiring the teams to play the last half of the sixth inning.

Place held a meeting of his players at the pitcher's mound and instructed them to let New Hampshire score a run. The plan: walk the first batter, and ensure that he made it home with the assistance of wild pitches and intentional errors so the game would be deadlocked at 9-9. Then, hopefully, win the game in the bottom of the sixth inning, with Adam Bentley getting his mandated turn at the plate.

Not so fast. The New Hampshire team's coach, Mark McCauley figured out what was happening and ordered his players not to score. So after a walk and two wild pitches allowed a New Hampshire runner to reach third base, the player refused to advance to the plate despite another wild pitch and a fielding error. McCauley also told his players to strike out intentionally, preserving Vermont's lead but guaranteeing a successful New Hampshire protest that, under the rules, would require that New Hampshire win by forfeit.

This obviously led to a ridiculous spectacle: one team trying to give up a run while the other team was trying to make outs and avoid scoring. The perplexed umpires understandably chose to end the debacle by ejecting Place and his pitcher from the game. Vermont won 9-8…and then New Hampshire was awarded the victory by forfeit, because Adam Bentley never got his turn at bat. The New Hampshire team advanced to the next round.

The Question: Whose conduct was unethical?

I commented on the VC as follows:

It's already been written in this blawg (I can't find the reference, but it was in regard to Paul Hamm and the South Koreans in the 2004 Olympics, a situation discussed for example here) that all of sports is arbitrary rules.  Personally I <b>do</b> go to the game to watch the manager think.  (Actually if I go to the game it's to participate in a summer ritual and to drink a beer in the sun, and the only games I've been to since the 1994 strike were two at the Lowell Spinners last year: one was rained out after a long, wet, wait; the other my kids got bored, all the schtick notwithstanding, and we left halfway through. I won tickets to see the North Shore Spirit this year, and I'd planned to see the fireworks, but both Saturday night home games last month it was too cold)but if I watch the game I'm concerned about the strategy.)

There was a similar question a week before this game: With first base empty and one out left, is it wrong to intentionally walk the strongest hitter so that you can pitch to the next, much weaker batter, who happens to be a cancer survivor?

Of all the rules involved the stupidest is that the bottom of the last inning is skipped.  It makes a good deal of sense if the home team is already ahead and assured of the win (still discounting that individual players compete for records) but it makes no sense when, as here, the team that is nominally ahead needs to do something to assure its win.

Baseball in particular is a team sport.  The sacrifice fly is the most obvious example: the coach is asking the batter to do something that will not get him on base, in order to let another player score a run for the team.

The stupidest rule, in my opinion, is in effect in some forms of co-ed volleyball, requiring that if a side hits the ball three times on a single play, one of those contacts must be by a woman.  Players ought to be treated the same regardless of sex.

Side note: Ethics Scoreboard reports that there is a Little League Pledge, as follows:

Looming over all of this is the Little League Pledge, a statement that dates from the Eisenhower administration and is recited with reverence by the players before every game:

I trust in God
I love my country
And will respect its laws
I will play fair
And strive to win
But win or lose
I will always do my best

 I don't remember that pledge from when I played, but I don't see any inherent conflict.  Intentionally walking a batter is both playing fair and doing one's best.

I'd meant to post on this before, but I've been busy, and as usual the Volokh Conspiracy blawg beat me too it.  They repost an item from the Ethics Scoreboard, asking:

On August 11 in Bristol, Conn., a Little League team from Colchester, Vt., only had to retire its Portsmouth, N.H. opposition in the top of the sixth inning (Little League games are six innings rather than nine) to win the game 9-8 and move on to the New England regional championship game.

But there was a problem. The Vermont team had made its third out in its half of the fifth inning before player Adam Bentley got to the plate. The Little League has a strict rule that requires every player to bat at least once a game, and the penalty for violating it is forfeit. Vermont's coach Denis Place realized, to his horror, that even though his team had the lead entering the last inning the only way it could avoid losing by forfeit was for Bentley to get an at bat. For that to happen, the New Hampshire team would have to tie the score or take the lead, requiring the teams to play the last half of the sixth inning.

Place held a meeting of his players at the pitcher's mound and instructed them to let New Hampshire score a run. The plan: walk the first batter, and ensure that he made it home with the assistance of wild pitches and intentional errors so the game would be deadlocked at 9-9. Then, hopefully, win the game in the bottom of the sixth inning, with Adam Bentley getting his mandated turn at the plate.

Not so fast. The New Hampshire team's coach, Mark McCauley figured out what was happening and ordered his players not to score. So after a walk and two wild pitches allowed a New Hampshire runner to reach third base, the player refused to advance to the plate despite another wild pitch and a fielding error. McCauley also told his players to strike out intentionally, preserving Vermont's lead but guaranteeing a successful New Hampshire protest that, under the rules, would require that New Hampshire win by forfeit.

This obviously led to a ridiculous spectacle: one team trying to give up a run while the other team was trying to make outs and avoid scoring. The perplexed umpires understandably chose to end the debacle by ejecting Place and his pitcher from the game. Vermont won 9-8…and then New Hampshire was awarded the victory by forfeit, because Adam Bentley never got his turn at bat. The New Hampshire team advanced to the next round.

The Question: Whose conduct was unethical?

I commented on the VC as follows:

It's already been written in this blawg (I can't find the reference, but it was in regard to Paul Hamm and the South Koreans in the 2004 Olympics, a situation discussed for example here) that all of sports is arbitrary rules.  Personally I <b>do</b> go to the game to watch the manager think.  (Actually if I go to the game it's to participate in a summer ritual and to drink a beer in the sun, and the only games I've been to since the 1994 strike were two at the Lowell Spinners last year: one was rained out after a long, wet, wait; the other my kids got bored, all the schtick notwithstanding, and we left halfway through. I won tickets to see the North Shore Spirit this year, and I'd planned to see the fireworks, but both Saturday night home games last month it was too cold)but if I watch the game I'm concerned about the strategy.)

There was a similar question a week before this game: With first base empty and one out left, is it wrong to intentionally walk the strongest hitter so that you can pitch to the next, much weaker batter, who happens to be a cancer survivor?

Of all the rules involved the stupidest is that the bottom of the last inning is skipped.  It makes a good deal of sense if the home team is already ahead and assured of the win (still discounting that individual players compete for records) but it makes no sense when, as here, the team that is nominally ahead needs to do something to assure its win.

Baseball in particular is a team sport.  The sacrifice fly is the most obvious example: the coach is asking the batter to do something that will not get him on base, in order to let another player score a run for the team.

The stupidest rule, in my opinion, is in effect in some forms of co-ed volleyball, requiring that if a side hits the ball three times on a single play, one of those contacts must be by a woman.  Players ought to be treated the same regardless of sex.

Side note: Ethics Scoreboard reports that there is a Little League Pledge, as follows:

Looming over all of this is the Little League Pledge, a statement that dates from the Eisenhower administration and is recited with reverence by the players before every game:

I trust in God
I love my country
And will respect its laws
I will play fair
And strive to win
But win or lose
I will always do my best

 I don't remember that pledge from when I played, but I don't see any inherent conflict.  Intentionally walking a batter is both playing fair and doing one's best.