Clipping:Arguments for and against allowing substitutes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, November 23, 1887 |
|---|---|
| Text | [reporting the joint rules committee meeting 11/15/1885] Delegate Spalding presented the following resolution:--”Resolved, That the question of each club having one or more extra men in uniform on the players' bench, who may be introduced into the game at any time, be brought up for discussion at the annual meetings of League and Association.” He urged its adoption, claiming that it would stop endless disputes and put a check on sulking players. Phelps also spoke in its favor. Scandrett, it is said, objected, but the resolution was finally adopted. The Sporting Life November 23, 1887 A strong fight will be made, it is believed, at the coming annual meeting of the American Association against the proposed new rule allowing two extra players' names to be printed on the score card,and giving a club power to substitute one of the extra players for another during a game. The rule was ostensibly made to give a manager a chance to lay a player off for “sulking” during a game, but will result in a club having two or three pitchers in the box during a game, as when one is batted freely he can “sulk” and have a fresh pitcher put in his place. Concerning the rule a Boston writer says;--”What is the use of the new rule? The old time-honored fashion of playing the game was that of having nine players on either side, with the privilege of substituting a fresh player for a wounded one. That went smoothly enough. Why was the change, and who called for it? Do the managers with to try experiments and, as it were conduct rehearsals in public? Very well, then, let them follow the example of Mr. Higginson in the Symphony concerts and charge a reduced price for the admission. We want the game in its perfection, not in its practice. Or is this their method of punishing refractory and ill-natured players? Suppose it is, who cares for this? Let them exercise their discipline in private and make it the business and information of those who are to suffer. The public feels no interest of any k ind in the subject, the guilt or it5s atonement. They want ball playing and best of its kind. The loving father spanks his boy in solitude both for decency and conscience sake. None of us feel absolutely sure that no trick here lurks concealed. The consequence, in practical ball playing, w3ill be anything but conducive to the gratification of the spectators and the peaceful solution of the contest. I predict, that unless this unhappy rule (which is as piteous in its woe-begone aspect as a tramp who expects a glass of rum and gets a loaf of brown bread) is amended out of existence, it will be a source of endless trouble in the playing season.” The Sporting Life November 30, 1887 |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />