Jump to content


Photo

Annual DA's Seminars


21 replies to this topic

#1 B_Hanlon

B_Hanlon

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 623 posts
  • LocationPomfret Center, CT

Posted 29 October 2016 - 12:08 PM

East Region is holding their annual DA Seminar today.
I believe that they are the first region to kick it off for 2017.
We will see if there is anything new.

#2 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 29 October 2016 - 05:56 PM

I've heard "rumors" about some potential changes (a few of which I am not in favor of!).
It will be interesting to hear about what gets discussed.

 

By the way, why so early?

Why not wait until AFTER the International BOD Meeting?

They meet on 11/11 and all of the other Regional Seminars are in December or January!

 

In the future, all of the Regional Meetings should be held AFTER the International Board Meeting.

Of course, that won't happen, it makes too much sense !!!



#3 B_Hanlon

B_Hanlon

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 623 posts
  • LocationPomfret Center, CT

Posted 31 October 2016 - 12:22 PM

While informative and a chance to get together with fellow DA's from all over the East Region I did not find a lot of new information came out of the seminar.

 

Topics Covered:

 

  • Big League Elimination
  • New Bat Standard
  • Dick's Sporting Goods/Blue Sombrero Sponsorship Agreement
  • Decision to look at new location for Central Region
  • New Dual Rostering Rule
  • Cracking down on Trademark Violations of "Little League"

 

 

The timing of this seminar might have been better if they waited until after the International BOD's meeting where any new rule changes get voted on. There seemed to be a hint that the "one foot in the box" was a favorable rule during the LLWS this past year so maybe look for that to get a serious look.



#4 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,315 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 01 November 2016 - 04:28 PM

The Dick's announcement last week was interesting. All of the whispers were that they were going to let the eteamz deal dissolve and not commit to just one vendor moving forward. They were going to look for a way to have several vendors mold their data to fit the new datacenter. Obviously, that fell apart at some point. I do believe that at some point they should have informed the locals that the eteamz deal was no more. 

 

One foot in the box... I will say it again... AT WHAT LEVEL OF LITTLE LEAGUE DO WE HAVE A TIME OF GAME ISSUE?!???? 



#5 Plesh

Plesh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 945 posts
  • LocationNorthern New Jersey

Posted 01 November 2016 - 04:34 PM

Minors.

 

But that's because of poor pitching and poor catching and poor throwing.

 

So to your point, one foot in the box, STUPID.



#6 Guest_Lou Barbieri_*

Guest_Lou Barbieri_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2016 - 04:40 PM

The announcement about Dick's is part of the latest "News" on the LL Website:

 

http://www.littlelea...vember-2016.htm

 

 

 



#7 B_Hanlon

B_Hanlon

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 623 posts
  • LocationPomfret Center, CT

Posted 01 November 2016 - 05:00 PM

You can't beta test something in the LLWS or Regionals like one foot in the box.  

Once a team makes it to Regionals they attend a coaches meeting that spells out the expectations.

One foot in the box? No problem boss....  



#8 jkllfan

jkllfan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9 posts

Posted 01 November 2016 - 05:30 PM

It will be interesting to see how the change to Dicks / Blue Sombrero affects our league.
At the start of the past season we went with eTeamz as they were the Little League partner.
It was a 3 year deal with a signed agreement so I guess we will wait to see what happens.

#9 Plesh

Plesh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 945 posts
  • LocationNorthern New Jersey

Posted 01 November 2016 - 06:35 PM

Well if anyone here watched the one foot in the box "experiment" during the two LLWS consolation games, you noticed how the games only took one hour! Success!

 

Just kidding.

 

It'll shave 2 minutes off a game max. Ridiculous that it's even proposed. The only reason games run [slightly] longer now is because of pitch counts/ pitching changes.

 

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

 

And we just switched over from our own custom website we've had for the past 15 years to Blue Sombrero.

 

I like it so far although somehow I became our webmaster so that'll be a lot of fun once it goes live. Creating the site is tedious enough, I can't wait for everyone to start using it.

 

RIP inbox.



#10 amutz

amutz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 827 posts
  • LocationNorCal

Posted 01 November 2016 - 07:32 PM

I'm also interested in the Blue Sombrero vs LeagueLineup vs TeamSnap and etc experiences.
Local leagues use, in no particular order, LeagueToolbox, SportsEngine, custom, SI Play, Blue Sombrero, and eTeamz.
SI Play and eTeamz look most popular here.

#11 Jeremy

Jeremy

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • Administrators
  • 1,307 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 02 November 2016 - 11:59 PM

If I remember right there's 17 parts (or something like that) to the one foot in the box rule....If my umps were graded they would get a D+ and they only get the + because they're volunteers.....I get an F for teaching the umps....One foot in the box would be a nightmare in my league.

#12 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2016 - 12:54 PM

First, I'm not in favor of the rule, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

In my opinion, it's simply part of "game management" by the Umpire.

 

Basically the rule is the batter needs to keep at least one foot in the batter's box during the at-bat.

 

There are 8 "exceptions" that allow the batter to leave the batter's box:

1) a swing, slap or check swing

2) when forced out of the box by a pitch

3) attempting a drag bunt

4) catcher does not catch the pitch

5) a play is attempted

6) time is called

7) pitcher leaves the mound area

8) 3 ball count and the batter thinks the pitch is ball 4

 

It's certainly more confusing than it needs to be !!!



#13 Plesh

Plesh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 945 posts
  • LocationNorthern New Jersey

Posted 03 November 2016 - 01:28 PM

This is Little League.

Half of your players are statues in the box during and between pitches.


  • rsnyder6 likes this

#14 amutz

amutz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 827 posts
  • LocationNorCal

Posted 03 November 2016 - 03:44 PM

Little League pace of play for us is all about the pitching quality (strikes) and pace.  

Almost never seen it slowed by the batter.

 

In fact one of my biggest gripes as a manager was them STAYING in the box (statue).... about 1/2 did exactly this.

It was very hard getting my kids to step out and take a cut during an at-bat after a swing-and-miss when they should reset or look for a sign.

 

I could see a rule telling the pitcher to stay on the mound though as I have seen some 'wandering pitchers'.  :-)

Very funny to hear a manager yell at his pitcher to get back on the mound.



#15 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 03 November 2016 - 04:08 PM

First, I'm not in favor of the rule, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

In my opinion, it's simply part of "game management" by the Umpire.

 

Basically the rule is the batter needs to keep at least one foot in the batter's box during the at-bat.

 

There are 8 "exceptions" that allow the batter to leave the batter's box:

1) a swing, slap or check swing

2) when forced out of the box by a pitch

3) attempting a drag bunt

4) catcher does not catch the pitch

5) a play is attempted

6) time is called

7) pitcher leaves the mound area

8) 3 ball count and the batter thinks the pitch is ball 4

 

It's certainly more confusing than it needs to be !!!

 

And it includes  "and delays the game"  so just leaving is not in and of itself illegal.



#16 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,315 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 03 November 2016 - 04:16 PM

Having long games? Stop the between inning meetings. That will keep the game moving.

 

What bothers me more, though, is we voted on it and it was defeated. I said this prior to 2016 roundtables... it is time to put in a policy on how many times we can consider a proposal. How many times have we voted on square and swing? It should not be allowed to be put on more than three consecutive agendas. That means five years. At the point, you have had an election cycle in the DAs. If it hasn't passed by then, it needs to get put on the shelf for a minimum of two years. 

 

 

Listening to the whispers and leaves rustling, three other items that it sounds like the board will discuss later this month...

 

+ Leaving the bench or joining in during altercation (apparently becoming an issue in teen baseball)

+ No more pitches for intentional walk

+ Some adjustment to SPR (not sure of what it states, though)



#17 B_Hanlon

B_Hanlon

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 623 posts
  • LocationPomfret Center, CT

Posted 05 November 2016 - 10:58 PM

Well said Mike

#18 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,863 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 06 November 2016 - 03:04 PM

LL (Williamsport) has it's own "favorites".
They put things on the agenda that they want (like the one foot in the batter's box).
If it doesn't pass they put on the Agenda again (and again).

I agree there should be a limit.
To me it should be simple, no item can be on an Agend more than two times in a row.
If it doesn't pass twice it can't be on the agenda the next time.

So, for example, an item is on the Agenda at Congress in 2018.
If it doesn't pass it could be on the Agenda for the 2020 Roundtables.
If it doesn't pass in 2020 it can't be on the 2022 Congress Agenda.
The earliest it could be on the Agenda again would be 2024 Roundtables.

 

=================================================
Not sure about the not leaving the bench rule.
It sounds fine but I have one issue with it.
If there is an altercation in football, each team has 11 players on the field.
In basketball it's 5 on 5, in hockey it's 6 on 6, in most sports each team has the same number of players on the field/court.
Not so in baseball, in baseball it's generally 9 on 2 or 3, it can never be 9 on 9.
So, is the offensive team supposed to just stand there in the dugout and watch their teammates get overwhelmed?

Now, all of that said, in the last 20 years or so I can count the number of fights in games at my local league on one hand and have fingers left over.



#19 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,315 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 07 November 2016 - 06:18 PM

The only reason I wouldn't say one-and-done, Lou, is that the discussions are considerably different at a round table compared to a Congress. At Congress, the folks from the West can sway the folks from the East during discussion periods. At round tables, opinions aren't exchanged the same way. For example, I think the teen baseball discussion could have been very productive at a Congress. But at a round table, you are throwing ideas out there for the staff to take back to The Hill. The idea expressed in the last round table out down south doesn't get shared with the first group out west. 

 

So, you go through a Congressional cycle, you go through a potential DA turnover. If it doesn't get through on three agendas, we shouldn't still be discussing it. 

 

And yes, LLHQ will dictate the conversation. Remember the passage of 11 year old tournament? There was a Congress the following spring, but it was implemented by the Board during the LLWS. Pretty sure the same thing happened with school enrollment. 

 

 

The altercation proposal was termed as "involvement"... which I would think means leaving your position, leaving the bench, etc. We were the ones that had a fight in Big League softball regionals this year. Had to toss two kids, two coaches and two parents. Being that I was up the hill peeking in on senior game when it first happened, I can't tell you how many others would have been deemed "involved". But when I got down there, those were the kinds of discussions taking place when the umpires and game staff were sorting it out after order was restored. 



#20 Guest_Lou Barbieri_*

Guest_Lou Barbieri_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 November 2016 - 02:54 PM

Mike, I didn't say one and done I said two and done!

LL was the one who decided to "create" the Roundtables, they have to live with the system they created.

If you wait to have two Congresses, the item could be on an Agenda four times in a row (first time at Roundtable, then at Congress, then at another Roundtable and finally at another Congress).

 

To me, if it fails twice, that should be enough.

 

Also, to me, if it doesn't get at least 50% of the vote the first time it shouldn't be allowed to be on the Agenda at the next Roundtable or Congress.

 

=========

As for the new proposal, why aren't the current rules enough?

The Umpires have the authority to eject whoever they think should be ejected, why throw "involvement" into the equation?

Why would anyone "not involved" get ejected!

What am I missing???

If the problem is with Big League then it's no longer a problem since there is no Big League anymore !!!

 

 





Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users