Clipping:The 'playing off' problem discussed in council
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, December 15, 1861 |
|---|---|
| Text | [at the December 1861 NABBP convention] The Committee of Rules, through their chairman, Dr. Adams, reported that they had no changes in the rules to recommend which they deemed advisable. Only one proposition had been submitted to them, and that was to obviate in some way the unfair practice indulged in by certain clubs of prolonging the inning at the conclusion of a game, in order to prevent its completion, and so deciding the contest by the results of the last even inning. The Committee felt that this was a most reprehensible practice, and one which no club which had any regard for its reputation, character, and standing should permit among its players; still, they were not prepared to say exactly how it should be obviated. The Committee would therefore make no recommendation, but submit the proposition presented to them to the Association, in order that it might be discussed, and if deemed advisable, adopted. The proposition was to amend Section 31, by adding to it as follows: “If an inning is entered upon, and both parties have been at the bat, and the party last at bat have the greatest number of runs when play is suspended, they shall be declared the winner.” The report was, on motion, received, and laid upon the table till after the election of officers. ... The report of the Committee on Rules was then taken from the table, and Judge Van Cott, of the Gotham Club, moved the adoption of the proposed amendment to Section 31. This motion gave rise to a somewhat lengthy discussion. Judge Van Cott thought the proposed amendment was the best remedy to the evil complained of, and it was just, for the reason that the club having the greatest number of runs, after their opponents have had the opportunity to make all they could, is entitled to the game. Mr. Vanderhoff, of the Charter Oak Club, thought the only proper way was to amend the rules so as to make the game consist of nine innings, and when nine innings are not played, it shall be considered no game. This would induce clubs to begin playing earlier and hurry the game to completion. A delegate from Newark thought it would be better to instruct umpires, in all cases, to suspend the game at a certain hour, say sunset–it being discretionary with him whether an inning shall be commenced which probably cannot be completed before that time. Dr. Adams stated that he liked the proposition of Mr. Vanderhoff better than any other, and moved to amend the proposed amendment by striking out the whole of Section 31–which would leave the game confined to nine innings, no less. Mr. Cauldwell (of the Union), while he favored any effort which would have a tendency to remedy the evil sought to be reached, believed that the umpires in no matches, if they would do their duty fully, had the power, under Section 28, to correct the matter. The umpire is the judge of fair and unfair play; since any attempt on the part of the club at the bat, or the club in the field, to “play off” a game is manifestly unfair, the umpire has the power to warn the guilty party, that if they persist in the matter, he will call the game and decide it in favor of the opposing party. A few examples of this kind would have a good effect, and perhaps remedy the evil. Dr. Jones, of the Excelsior, and Mr. E. H. Brown, of the Metropolitan, favored the same view in the matter. It was then resolved, by Mr. Mott, of the Eagle Club, to lay the proposition and amendment on the table, which was carried. |
| Source | New York Sunday Mercury |
| 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" />