Jump to content


Justifications for Less Than 12 on Tournament Team


33 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Coach Q_*

Guest_Coach Q_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 July 2014 - 05:17 PM

From my understanding, a tournament team can carry less than 12 players ONLY if a justification is provided and approved by the District Administrator. The specific language from the official LL FAQ reads as follows:
"If a team has less than twelve players listed on their affidavit, justification must be provided by the
league and approved by that league’s District Administrator signified by his/her approval signature on the Affidavit. (Tournament Affidavit and Rule 1.01)"

What would be a valid justification for carrying less than 12 players that would be approved?

#2 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,082 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 02 July 2014 - 05:31 PM

Sorry if this sounds saracastic, but the answer to your question is:  Whatever the DA approves !!!

There is no "correct" answer because what one DA approves another might not.

 

In some cases small leagues or even combined leagues have trouble getting 12 players, to me that's justification enough.

Many leagues have problems because players go on family vacations (they don't seem to hang around to play LL All Stars like they used to).

 

The point is, if you present a Tournament Affidavit with less than 12 players on it to the DA the DA should (will) ask why there aren't 12.

If you can justify/convince the DA that you can't get 12 then that's it, once the DA signs the Affidavit having less than 12 is "approved".



#3 Guest_Coach Q_*

Guest_Coach Q_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 July 2014 - 05:55 PM

A few more questions:

1. Because it's from a typically strong/competitive league that is medium-large in size, is it safe to assume that it's likely bogus?

2. Is it possible to see the justification provided and approved? If so, how does one get access to the justification provided?

3. Once it is approved, is it safe to assume that it's unassailable/challengeable or can it be challenged/appealed? If so, how?

#4 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,082 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 02 July 2014 - 07:30 PM

1) Maybe/maybe not.  Ihave no idea what their justification is/could be.  Legit/bogus is in the eye of the beholder !!!

2) No, like I said, it could easily have been "oral" (a "discussion between the League President and the DA).

3) Once the DA signs the Affidavit it's a done deal, no challenge allowed.



#5 B_Hanlon

B_Hanlon

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 623 posts
  • LocationPomfret Center, CT

Posted 02 July 2014 - 07:41 PM

As Lou was eluding this is a real "gray" area. The spirit of the rule is exactly what he states in that if a DA knows they can easily get a 12th he should tell them to add a kid. That being said there was a team in Williamsport last year and I believe they came out of the gate with 11 kids from day one. They were a good size league so my gut tells me that this is a edict that has to be addressed or it will get totally abused.

 

To answer your questions I would ask "who is asking" as that would bring different answers. If you are  a competing team:

 

1. Probably bogus

2. No, you have to assume that the DA was on board. They do not have to justify to another league/team.

3. It's safe to say it is not challenge-able, the DA had his reason to sign off.

 

If WIlliamsport really wants this they can find a way to put teeth into it. 



#6 Guest_Coach Q_*

Guest_Coach Q_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 July 2014 - 08:40 PM

I agree that a valid justification could exist for a very small league that legitimately could not get commitments from 12 players. In any other scenario, carrying less than 12 players seems completely bogus and solely designed for competitive advantage. To make it worse, it is seemingly a complete circumvention of the rules without any recourse for teams that play by the rules. Until someone suggests any other even remotely plausible justification, this seems like an utter joke. Please feel free to suggest any other even remotely plausible justification for this to be allowed for a bigger, very competitive league.

#7 Jamief

Jamief

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 02 July 2014 - 10:14 PM

I agree 11 is easier than 12 but after this season we've seen the benefit to carrying 13.

We have smaller towns in our district that went with 11. One town that had two majors teams come with only 11. They claimed they couldn't get commitments.

Anyway the two team in the finals both carried 13.

#8 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 02 July 2014 - 10:32 PM

Can't go solely on league size... you could have a small age class, a group of 12s that chose INT over LL team, or a variety of other reasons. If you take issue with it, raise the issue with the DA that agreed to it. 



#9 B_Hanlon

B_Hanlon

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 623 posts
  • LocationPomfret Center, CT

Posted 03 July 2014 - 10:48 AM

I'm not too keen on the rule in the first place. I think Little League finally nailed the "less than 13 on a roster" with the new MPR rule introduced last year., why add in another complicated rule/suggestion.

Maybe in the future they can tie this to the numbers and tighten up the rule, until then it will be subject to abuse. The small rosters are also in the backs of the leagues, their BOD's and ultimately the parents that run the leagues. If you don't like what is going on you need to make a stink.

#10 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 06 July 2014 - 03:25 PM

I think the issue is that it isn't worth carrying 12 in a coach's mentality. Either 11 or 13 because of the MPR involved.

 

While we have tried to deregulate at the higher levels in the organization, not every DA is always 100% on the up and up and that leaves room for abuse. 



#11 Guest_Coach Q_*

Guest_Coach Q_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 July 2014 - 07:10 PM

Bright line rules avoid abuses. The exception to 12 seems more likely to be abused than not and I'm fairly certain that it's being abused and used solely for competitive advantage in the situation to which I refer. But, how can anyone really prove anything and complaining or questioning seems whiny and unsportsmanlike even though we are the ones playing by the rules.

#12 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 07 July 2014 - 07:35 PM

District Administrator is an elected position. On the other side, a DA in California is being raked over the coals in the media for the second time in six months... this time because she turned in a juniors program that failed to play 12 games against Little League teams. Refused to sign the affidavit and parents don't think she was "the proper advocate for the children."



#13 LL_K

LL_K

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 08:08 PM

We've had leagues try to get by with less than the needed amount of games in their schedule.  Kudos to her for standing her ground.  What about the League President that didn't do what was needed to get his team qualified?



#14 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 07 July 2014 - 08:22 PM

Without airing the whole thing out... because I don't know all of the facts at this point... it appears from media reports and other sources that this team was either trying to slip by or thought that games against other baseball organizations could count towards the 12. 

 

The point is that some DAs are better than others... but every DA is an elected official that is voted on by the member leagues. 



#15 Guest_Coach Q_*

Guest_Coach Q_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:12 PM

Elected by whom? Serving whose interests? Certainly not the interests of those in competing districts. When the rules give too much discretion to one person, the rules we likely get manipulated and abused. That is what is likely occurring with many teams carrying less than 12 players. Impossible to prove definitively, but common sense prevails.

#16 richives

richives

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts
  • LocationOwego, NY

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:21 PM

Elected by whom?

 

The league presidents in the district.



#17 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:31 PM

If a DA was truly favoring just one team in a district, besides the number of complaints that would go to the regional office, don't you think the leagues in the district would vote that DA out of office??? And if you don't think that DA would get called out by other DAs in the state, guess again. 

 

Again, deregulation has its disadvantages and not every DA is Grade-A. But if you don't understand the entire process (which there is a hint of in that last message), you should tread lightly. 



#18 B_Hanlon

B_Hanlon

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 623 posts
  • LocationPomfret Center, CT

Posted 08 July 2014 - 02:12 PM

Like any new program it takes a year or two before the dust settles. If certain DA's are going to ignore the spirit of the rule then you can probably bet the other DA's in neighboring Districts are going to be less likely to enforce it next season. Most DA's like to support their District and keep things fair.



#19 stan.staziak

stan.staziak

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Locationsterling, va

Posted 08 July 2014 - 02:52 PM

I went to a district tournament game last night as I knew some of the players and there were 11 kids at the game for this team.  I asked the score keeper whom I knew if all the kids were there and he said yes, I then said, are there only 11 or am I missing one. He said, they went with 11. I asked why, he said he had no idea why. I didn't ask about the waiver or anything as I doubted he would know that



#20 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:25 PM

There isn't a formal waiver for it, Stan. It is up to the DA to sign it... if they sign off on 11, they have approved it. That is part of the problem with the rule. There isn't a written / formal justification process. It could be a verbal conversation and the DA agrees to sign it. 





Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users