Jump to content


Photo

Little League Congress

Little League Congress

38 replies to this topic

#1 B_Hanlon

B_Hanlon

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 225 posts
  • LocationPomfret Center, CT

Posted 06 January 2014 - 07:40 PM

Littleleague.org just updated their website with a page dedicated to 2014 Congress. This is the link to the agenda with the updated roll out of The Congress Agenda and all the various topics in the agenda.

 

 

Little League Congress 2014 Agenda: http://www.littlelea...ress/agenda.htm



#2 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 629 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:15 PM

Softball pitching changes are to be more like other softball organizations.

Not sure about "no restictictions" for Juniors and up unless the league puts in a Local Rule with limits.

 

Of course, the BB age date cutoff is in there (It says it's for all divisions of baseball but the wording is only for majors and minors).

 

Two double-headers in a week - sure hope they aren't on back-to-back days (eg, Saturday and Sunday).

3 games in a day, again, I sure hope they aren't on back-to-back days!

 

Don't think the "one foot in the batter's box" will really do much to speed up the game.

 

I HATE (did I say HATE) the batter being out for faking a bunt and then swinging away.

 

I HATE that one almost as much as I HATE the pitcher being removed for hitting 3 batters in a game.

 

Then again, maybe that's just me !!!

 

I won't be at Congress this year (since I left my District Position in my old Florida District and haven't even started trying to get involved in LL up here in the Charlotte area yet).

I'm going to miss it this year, always had a good time at Congress.



#3 Jeremy

Jeremy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:43 PM

The three batters in a game is just a bylaw for some leagues, correct..?

#4 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:59 PM

No, Jeremy... this is a proposal to make it a RULE for ALL LEVELS. No local option in the proposal. 



#5 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 629 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 07 January 2014 - 12:44 AM

Removing a pitcher for hitting 3 batters in a game is currently NOT a LL Rule.

As such, for a league to put such a requirement in their local rules would require a Waiver from LL.

IF the Congress proposal were to pass (which I hope it doesn't) then LL could revise the rule and a Waiver would no longer be required.

 

Now, do some leagues have local rules/by-laws that conflict with LL Rules/Regulations "without" the required approved Waivers from LL, of course they do, but that doesn't make it right!



#6 Jeremy

Jeremy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 05:36 AM

No, Jeremy... this is a proposal to make it a RULE for ALL LEVELS. No local option in the proposal.



I read the link and see it now.

As a softball manager a few years ago an ump tried to remove my pitcher after hitting four girls, I couldn't find it in the rule book and always assumed it was a baseball rule and not softball....I'm slowly learning my league made up many rules....When I first started umping the league President use to make me call illegal pitch if there was a runner on first and they pitched from the windup at the major and minor level.

#7 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 03:40 PM

That is where this is stemming from... a number of leagues made it as a local rule and are pushing for it to become book rule. 



#8 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 629 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:45 PM

If I were king for a day I'd solve this one differently.
I'd say NO to the leagues asking for a Waiver!!!
By the way, I'd also say NO to anyone asking for a Waiver to call someone out for a Fake Bunt !!!

I guess that's why I got turned down when I applied for that Janitor Job in Williamsport. ;o)

#9 Guest_Andrew_*

Guest_Andrew_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:50 PM

 On the age change that is listed on the agenda (item 2), isn't the exception added (which I'm guessing is the grandfather rule) wrong?  

 

It currently reads: 

EXCEPTION FOR 2015 ONLY: A child who is league age 13, and who was born May 2001 – December 2001 is eligible for the Major Division in 2015. Any player who would be eligible under this exception must be permitted to play in the Major Division and is eligible to participate within the 2015 Little League (Major) Baseball International Tournament. 

 

 

For the 2015 season, shouldn't the exception apply to kids born who turn 13 from May 2002-December 2002...the May 2001-December 2001 kids will be league age 14 not 13, right?  



#10 CoachPaul

CoachPaul

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 06:56 PM

The agenda has been updated and the typo corrected:

 

EXCEPTION FOR 2015 ONLY: A child who is league age 13, and who was born May 2002 – December 2002 is eligible for the Major Division in 2015. Any player who would be eligible under this exception must be permitted to play in the Major Division and is eligible to participate within the 2015 Little League (Major) Baseball International Tournament. 



#11 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 629 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 09 January 2014 - 06:55 PM

On a different aspect of Congress, does your DA solicit input from the leagues on how he/she should vote on each Agenda Item?

In my previous District in Florida the Agenda Items were handed out at a District Presidents' Meeting and the Presidents were asked to present/discuss them with their BOD and come back to the next District Meeting with how they would like the DA to vote.
At Congress the DA would then vote according to the consensus of the leagues in the District.

That said, I have been at the Round-Table discussions at Congress and have heard DAs say they vote the way they want and don't ask/don't care what their leagues say.

Here is an Excerpt from the Agenda Letter:
"Please bear in mind that you represent the leagues of your district in the largest democratic baseball and softball
forum in the world. We urge you to present these important issues to the leagues in your district and determine
their views on how you (or your designated Alternate) should vote. Please impress upon your leagues the
importance of their input into shaping the Little League® program around the world."

Just wondering if most DAs do it that way (I guess I really mean I'm just hoping most DAs do it that way).

#12 MarkS

MarkS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • LocationNorthern Virginia

Posted 10 January 2014 - 12:39 AM

My DA definitely solicits inputs.  He sends the items out and then it is discussed at a meeting of Presidents/Staff.  That is what he did with the original Congress questionnaire and prior to Region Roundtable 2 yrs ago.



#13 B_Hanlon

B_Hanlon

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 225 posts
  • LocationPomfret Center, CT

Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:32 PM

This will be my first congress and while I intend to ask our member leagues their opinions I also wonder if the DA's are given new additional information at the congress that will better educate them with their decision making.

 

As an example: The biggest subject on the agenda is the age rollback and I  am guessing most will oppose. But if Steve Keener were to give an opening address to congress and then made a presentation on why this age change is a good idea and really sell it maybe I would be influenced enough to vote against the recommendations from my member leagues.



#14 clawdad

clawdad

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts
  • LocationWestern New York

Posted 12 January 2014 - 05:24 AM

I sincerely hope that Items 10 (fake bunt then swing) & 12 (removal after 3 hit batters) do not pass.  There is already a feeling (right or wrong) that LL isn't "real" baseball.  This would just add to that sentiment, IMO.

 

Not that it is controversial or anything, but I'm curious as to Item #8 - allowing short model chest protector.  I wonder what prompted that?  I don't think it's a bad thing.  I remember having the long model protector way back when I played.  I do see catchers trying to keep the "tail" pushed down while in the crouch (and remember doing that too).


Craig


#15 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 629 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 13 January 2014 - 12:21 AM

At congress, each agenda item is discussed at the round-tables.
They put 8-10 DAs (ADAs) from different states/regions at each table and each item gets discussed.
The table can propose "changes" which then go to the committee to decide if the change should be presented to everyone.
After all the round-table discussions are over the DAs vote.

At the Houston Congress one member of the rules committee gave a brief discussion/overview of the change prior to the round-tables.
Don't recall that always happening at the Congresses I attended.

Bottom line, when you vote no one knows how you vote.
Youc ould vote the way your leagues want or you can vote the way you want, it's up to you.
That said, my opinion is a DA "represents" his/her District, maybe that's just me !!!

#16 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:04 AM

The system isn't perfect. We know DAs don't listen to their membership at times... ironically, just like the other congressional group. Most that I have been associated with have talked to the membership with their own opinions beforehand... and if that wasn't enough to convince, then they vote the way the membership feels. 

 

But there are those "other" DAs who don't follow rules, manuals and/or other things... 



#17 Guest_TIM RANDALL_*

Guest_TIM RANDALL_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 January 2014 - 03:00 PM

what is driving the age change



#18 Guest_Louis Barbieri_*

Guest_Louis Barbieri_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 January 2014 - 08:39 PM

Getting younger players on the small field.  By the time the LLWS rolls around you end up with a lot o f 13s playing 46/60 and some of them are pretty big kids, too big for 46/60.



#19 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts

Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:28 PM

Tim... there are two theories working. As Lou said, there is a thought that it makes the kids smaller on the small diamond. That was many folks original thought when the proposal was first "floated" 

 

After the proposal made it to the official agenda, LL HQ came back and said it was to match up with IBAF rules. Now, is there some issue at work with the foreign teams? (Especially after the intro to Australia to the program and the problems in Africa?)

 

I think the staff on The Hill has some explaining to do at Congress if that is the valid reason for the proposal. To just say IBAF matching... well, we did that with USA Baseball and that didn't unify the organizations as planned. So, if it is IBAF, why weren't we told in the beginning and what does it bring to the table now? 



#20 Jeremy

Jeremy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 27 January 2014 - 05:59 PM

LL lets 9 and 12 year olds on the field at the same time.....age cutoff or field size are not half the safety concern as a 9 year old pitching a 12" softball to a 12 year old or vise versa.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users