MTR wrote:GIMNEPIWO wrote:HugoTafurst wrote:I've done games recently where the time limit was:
"Finish the inning plus one more (full inning)"
I thought it was a decent way to deal with the necessity of having timed games.
Did they shorten the clock ? Say, instead of 80, make them 70 with one more full inning after ?
That IS the way to do it.
However, does anyone see the irony of the intent to run out the time while time is out?
GIMNEPIWO wrote:HugoTafurst wrote:I've done games recently where the time limit was:
"Finish the inning plus one more (full inning)"
I thought it was a decent way to deal with the necessity of having timed games.
Did they shorten the clock ? Say, instead of 80, make them 70 with one more full inning after ?
SnocatzDad wrote:Coach11 wrote:It's only stalling when you're on the losing end of the match.
Any good coach will recognize when/if his team isn't up to keeping a lead.
Managing the clock is a part of any timed game.
And any umpire worth his salt will recognize a stall tactic when he sees it.
Best way to keep him/her on their toes is to ask for the official time remaining at the start of the top and bottom of a late inning.
For Elimination games I'd agree. You manage the clock the same way you would manage substitutions batting order etc or your not a good coach. If you don't and lose due to poor clock management your depriving your team of an extra games worth of developement.
For league/pool games of little signifigance I feel the other way, your robbing both teams of an opportunity to play another inning in a game that will not send you home. Why not take advantage of putting your team in the pressure cooker of having to hold onto a lead late?
Unlike baserunning, hitting, pitching that should be played with the same intensity either way clock management is a coaching function and shouldn't require practice in non meaningful games unless your a poor coach.