[Rules] Please discuss. Intentional Walk Counter?

[admin]

9.1.16. Any Kicker electing to be out in lieu of an intentional walk may verbally notify the Game Head Referee and after doing so, is out. No Baserunners may advance on out made in this manner.

As a countermeasure to Intentional Walks, should we add this rule to the Rule Book? This is a little bit on the extreme but we want the Community's thoughts as well.

Thoughts?
Admin

[Zak]

only if an intentional walk does not require the pitcher to throw 4 balls. If a verbal walk is acceptable, than a verbal out should also be in place to combat this.

[Lost_Sage]

As the rules are written, one does not have to throw pitches in the Circuit to walk intentionally. A verbal intention to intentionally walk the kicker suffices to avoid the unintentional physical comedy (and potentially injury) associated with trying to throw/kick pitches 10 feet high and 20 feet to the side.

But the proposed rule, as written, reiterates a kicker's absolute right to be out. Should this be an absolute right, or should this be an obstacle a team on offense have to overcome? Should we, consistent with the no-baserunner-pull-with-two-outs-to-save-the-leadoff-currently-up rule, require a team to kick itself out of trouble, rather than take an out to do so?

[Catch-22]

An offense should have the right to make their kicker out if they want them to be over being walked. As mentioned, the only time this would be an issue is if some team is trying to walk the last kicker to get to the other team's lead-off. The offense should be allowed to counter that kind of a strategy by taking an out, which is hardly something the defense can complain about.

[Return of Ctiger]

An offense should have the right to make their kicker out if they want them to be over being walked. As mentioned, the only time this would be an issue is if some team is trying to walk the last kicker to get to the other team's lead-off. The offense should be allowed to counter that kind of a strategy by taking an out, which is hardly something the defense can complain about.

I disagree with this rule... Allowing a team to take an out when it's their last batter makes it more likely that teams will continue to play with much shorter lineups. This is one thing that allows a team with a bigger lineup to make up for not getting to their top as often, by not allowing the other team to get to their top clean. If you don't like this rule then start to have your 3rd to last and 2nd to last batters get on base more so your last batter isn't up with 2 outs as often... You might as well throw all strategy out the window if you allow a team to counter an intentional walk...

[Catch-22]

It just seems counter-intuitive to me to tell a kicker they have to take a base if they don't want to. It's not like taking an out is an inherently positive result for the offense. The offense is taking a risk by taking the out. If their leadoff gets out to start the next inning, the defense is better off.

[Zak]

An offense should have the right to make their kicker out if they want them to be over being walked. As mentioned, the only time this would be an issue is if some team is trying to walk the last kicker to get to the other team's lead-off. The offense should be allowed to counter that kind of a strategy by taking an out, which is hardly something the defense can complain about.

I disagree with this rule... Allowing a team to take an out when it's their last batter makes it more likely that teams will continue to play with much shorter lineups. This is one thing that allows a team with a bigger lineup to make up for not getting to their top as often, by not allowing the other team to get to their top clean. If you don't like this rule then start to have your 3rd to last and 2nd to last batters get on base more so your last batter isn't up with 2 outs as often... You might as well throw all strategy out the window if you allow a team to counter an intentional walk...

So it's ok for the defense to say "ok you get to be on base without any pitches being thrown" but not for the offense to say "ok you get to be out without any pitches being thrown"?

[MEATBALLKEVIN]

NO.

If you dont want that runner to be on base you have her/him step off the bag before the next batter kicks. This will be an out(3rd in most cases) but you will also lose the at bat of the kicker that is currently up.

[Zak]

NO.

If you dont want that runner to be on base you have her/him step off the bag before the next batter kicks. This will be an out(3rd in most cases) but you will also lose the at bat of the kicker that is currently up.

Once again, so the offense has to take action to get out, while the deffense has to do nothing to let a runner on? If the ball is actually pitched I'm fine with that, my issue is letting the kicker get on base without a pitch being thrown.

[Lost_Sage]

Again, I think the underlying theme for folks against this addition is: you can't declare yourself out as an offense to get out of trouble. Or is it? Is not allowing baserunner-pulls to create auto-outs consistent with not allowing waivers of intentional walks to create auto-outs?

[Lost_Sage]

True. But there are time and safety issues with pitchers and kickers dealing with 10' high and 20' wide pitches. And everyone who's watched a Founders' Cup game (recall, WAKA rules require the pitches to be thrown) and seen them agrees that it was quite a scene (and one the crowd didn't like either).

Or is is that the countermeasure should exist, but that we should just count on teams not to use it in a real game? The same way that in a baseball, no one actually swings at intentional walk pitches, even though s/he could take the out? (Then again, the chances of getting on base in baseball are far less than in kickball.)

NO.

If you dont want that runner to be on base you have her/him step off the bag before the next batter kicks. This will be an out(3rd in most cases) but you will also lose the at bat of the kicker that is currently up.

Once again, so the offense has to take action to get out, while the deffense has to do nothing to let a runner on? If the ball is actually pitched I'm fine with that, my issue is letting the kicker get on base without a pitch being thrown.

[MEATBALLKEVIN]

NO.

If you dont want that runner to be on base you have her/him step off the bag before the next batter kicks. This will be an out(3rd in most cases) but you will also lose the at bat of the kicker that is currently up.

Once again, so the offense has to take action to get out, while the deffense has to do nothing to let a runner on? If the ball is actually pitched I'm fine with that, my issue is letting the kicker get on base without a pitch being thrown.

why waste time ? remember FC 10? That was ridiculous. If you want to walk a kicker than so be it.

[Horses and Genitals]

What if the kicker who was walked went immediately to third base? Would they be out?

[Zak]

NO.

If you dont want that runner to be on base you have her/him step off the bag before the next batter kicks. This will be an out(3rd in most cases) but you will also lose the at bat of the kicker that is currently up.

Once again, so the offense has to take action to get out, while the deffense has to do nothing to let a runner on? If the ball is actually pitched I'm fine with that, my issue is letting the kicker get on base without a pitch being thrown.

why waste time ? remember FC 10? That was ridiculous. If you want to walk a kicker than so be it.

but at the same time, it's a waste of time to have the kicker walk to 1st and step off as there still needs to be a pitch for the out to occur. why even have him come up?

[Zak]

...Or is is that the countermeasure should exist, but that we should just count on teams not to use it in a real game? The same way that in a baseball, no one actually swings at intentional walk pitches, even though s/he could take the out? ...

this. if you walk someone, there should be a possible counter-measure. If you walk someone without a pitch, they should be able to get out without a pitch.

[MEATBALLKEVIN]

...Or is is that the countermeasure should exist, but that we should just count on teams not to use it in a real game? The same way that in a baseball, no one actually swings at intentional walk pitches, even though s/he could take the out? ...

this. if you walk someone, there should be a possible counter-measure. If you walk someone without a pitch, they should be able to get out without a pitch.

they can get out without a pitch. You just loose the at bat of the current kicker.

The true way to counter act is to have your next batter (most likely your lead off) to try to kick a homer. If its does not work out then you lead off next inning with your #2 batter..NBD

[Eliminator]

Personally I would rather it if pitches had to me thrown for a walk to occur. Make it more like baseball than softball.

[kim dude]

If the pitcher has to throw the pitch and opts to throw some ridiculously high ball and the kicker chases it down and kicks it before the catcher gets there its a foul. If they manage to catch the pitch are they out?

[Return of Ctiger]

If the pitcher has to throw the pitch and opts to throw some ridiculously high ball and the kicker chases it down and kicks it before the catcher gets there its a foul. If they manage to catch the pitch are they out?

I can tell you right now this will be a waste of time.. The way most of the fields are the pitcher will just throw the ball over the fence causing a giant waste of time. If we are going to change a walk rule change the rule that Simon uses in Ultra.. if you walk a guy in front of a girl she gets on too.. Don't change the intentional walk rule

[Zak]

...Or is is that the countermeasure should exist, but that we should just count on teams not to use it in a real game? The same way that in a baseball, no one actually swings at intentional walk pitches, even though s/he could take the out? ...

this. if you walk someone, there should be a possible counter-measure. If you walk someone without a pitch, they should be able to get out without a pitch.

they can get out without a pitch. You just loose the at bat of the current kicker.

The true way to counter act is to have your next batter (most likely your lead off) to try to kick a homer. If its does not work out then you lead off next inning with your #2 batter..NBD

that's not a counter measure to just step off base as you are losing 2 kickers due to it. if walking a kicker put the next 2 kickers on base then maybe it would be equal

[Zak]

... If we are going to change a walk rule change the rule that Simon uses in Ultra.. if you walk a guy in front of a girl she gets on too.. Don't change the intentional walk rule

a) I fundamentally disagree with a co-ed game have different rules if you have a vagina instead of a penis
b) that change does nothing concerning the rule at hand unless you have a guy kicking 2nd to last and a chick kicking last

[timberwolf]

9.1.16. Any Kicker electing to be out in lieu of an intentional walk may verbally notify the Game Head Referee and after doing so, is out. No Baserunners may advance on out made in this manner.

As a countermeasure to Intentional Walks, should we add this rule to the Rule Book? This is a little bit on the extreme but we want the Community's thoughts as well.

Thoughts?
Admin

Why do you need a counter-measure for this? I don't think it's a good idea.

Kicker comes up to the plate. Pitcher/captain says "we're walking them". Kicker says " No, I'm choosing to be out!"

Really? Ok thanks for wasting everybody's time. What was the point of even going up there in the first place then.

By walking someone, the defense does assume *some* level of risk by letting them on base automatically. The expectation/hope is that the next kicker will be an easy out, or if it's the lead-off, that they will be able to burn-up some of the top. But it isn't guaranteed to happen that way. I've seen that scenario backfire before. It is a risk, still.

And it's a potential opportunity for the offense too. Isn't that the goal? To have a kicker get on base? If not, why are they even kicking?? You might as well have the equivalent of chess pieces and play the game on a board.

Less is more. Don't add rules unless they are necessary. That's my opinion anyways.

[Bellman]

Personally I would rather it if pitches had to me thrown for a walk to occur. Make it more like baseball than softball.

I would tend to agree if it wasn't for the time limit of games. Additionally, in baseball a hitter can't leave the batter's box to swing at an intentional ball. If there was a rule that said a kicker couldn't kick a ball that was completely out of the kicking box, then the pitches wouldn't have to be ridiculous to intentionally walk someone. I don't feel too strongly about it, but I tend to agree with Kevin on this one. The defense assumes the risk of a baserunner that could score, and advancing any other baserunners as well. The offense should take some sort of a hit if they don't want to try to score that inning, meaning the next kicker is lost. However, I wouldn't be opposed to an intentional walk with the bases empty being a 2-base walk to make it a little more even.

Conversely, from the official MLB rules:

10.14(c) If a batter awarded a base on balls is called out for refusing to advance to first base,
the official scorer shall not credit the base on balls and shall charge a time at bat.

[admin]

Thank you everyone for their feedback. As always we want to publicly post potential rule changes that we think deserve the attention of the community.

At this time this rule is NOT in v.2012. As always we will add this to the discussion for next year.

And, in case you're wondering, the final draft rule book will be out (very) soon.

Admin


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.900032,-77.042398

[2_easy]

I don't think you should allow the kicker the choice to be out (there are many ways for them to get out if they really want to). However, I do think that if you intentionally walk someone (any sex), they should get 2 bases and be in scoring position. (this means if there are already 2 runners on base - one would score) This is the penalty for deciding not to "pitch around".

I would define an intentional walk as: Verbal from the fielding team that they are intentionally walking the kicker (no pitches necessary) or when back to back pitches do NOT bounce at least once prior to reaching home plate AND does not travel through the kicking box plane and the count reaches 4 balls.

[Bellman]

I don't think you should allow the kicker the choice to be out (there are many ways for them to get out if they really want to). However, I do think that if you intentionally walk someone (any sex), they should get 2 bases and be in scoring position. (this means if there are already 2 runners on base - one would score) This is the penalty for deciding not to "pitch around".

I would define an intentional walk as: Verbal from the fielding team that they are intentionally walking the kicker (no pitches necessary) or when back to back pitches do NOT bounce at least once prior to reaching home plate AND does not travel through the kicking box plane and the count reaches 4 balls.

Agreed, except that I think an intentional walk should also be a judgment call of the umpire.

[Portland]

If you have a baserunner on just have them step off before the defense makes the intentional walk call. Making the baserunner the third out & the intentional walk would lose their up. Bringing the top of the order up for the next inning.

[Trey it Up]

If you have a baserunner on just have them step off before the defense makes the intentional walk call. Making the baserunner the third out & the intentional walk would lose their up. Bringing the top of the order up for the next inning.

The problem is in the Circuit, you don't have to throw a pitch to intentionally walk, so the baserunner can be off the bag and he/she still wouldn't be out.

[kim dude]

If you have a baserunner on just have them step off before the defense makes the intentional walk call. Making the baserunner the third out & the intentional walk would lose their up. Bringing the top of the order up for the next inning.

The problem is in the Circuit, you don't have to throw a pitch to intentionally walk, so the baserunner can be off the bag and he/she still wouldn't be out.

i don't feel like looking it up but I believe you have to be off the bag when the ball is kicked to be out.

[Trey it Up]

If you have a baserunner on just have them step off before the defense makes the intentional walk call. Making the baserunner the third out & the intentional walk would lose their up. Bringing the top of the order up for the next inning.

The problem is in the Circuit, you don't have to throw a pitch to intentionally walk, so the baserunner can be off the bag and he/she still wouldn't be out.

i don't feel like looking it up but I believe you have to be off the bag when the ball is kicked to be out.

That's correct...which requires a pitch.

[kim dude]

If you have a baserunner on just have them step off before the defense makes the intentional walk call. Making the baserunner the third out & the intentional walk would lose their up. Bringing the top of the order up for the next inning.

The problem is in the Circuit, you don't have to throw a pitch to intentionally walk, so the baserunner can be off the bag and he/she still wouldn't be out.

i don't feel like looking it up but I believe you have to be off the bag when the ball is kicked to be out.

That's correct...which requires a pitch.

true, but my point was that the kick is what gets the out, not the pitch

[Trey it Up]

Agreed. And since the Pitcher isn't required to pitch, the kicker doesn't have a chance to kick it. I wasn't saying the runner being off the bag at the pitch caused the out. I was saying that the pitcher wasn't required to pitch--therefore no possibility of a kick.

[kim dude]

Agreed. And since the Pitcher isn't required to pitch, the kicker doesn't have a chance to kick it. I wasn't saying the runner being off the bag at the pitch caused the out. I was saying that the pitcher wasn't required to pitch--therefore no possibility of a kick.

Cool, we should argue some more from the same point of view. Really I was saying that since Portland is an independent league that they might know how our rules work.

[Trey it Up]

Yeah, but he's on the WC (unless it's Portland, Maine...and then he's in Canada), so it'll be a few years before he'll need to know any of this stuff.

Let's start a thread about what kind of weird stuff could have been stolen from Barcus's apartment last night.

[Portland]

Yeah, but he's on the WC (unless it's Portland, Maine...and then he's in Canada), so it'll be a few years before he'll need to know any of this stuff.

As of now Portland has 6 guys that have combined with an East Coast team to play in the circuit. Portlandia is my team I'll be bringing to the circuit, yes you will have to come west to play us. The 4 events were looking at coming to NM, San Diego, San Francisco and Nationals.
We can't make it out East of course because it takes to long for the Ox's to pull the covered wagon. The family is so happy we just got indoor pluming like you big city folks out east.

I haven't gotten much further in the rule book then the encroaching rule, I see it in the rules but have never seen it called in a game?

[Trey it Up]

Yeah, but he's on the WC (unless it's Portland, Maine...and then he's in Canada), so it'll be a few years before he'll need to know any of this stuff.

As of now Portland has 6 guys that have combined with an East Coast team to play in the circuit. Portlandia is my team I'll be bringing to the circuit the circuit, yes you will have to come west to play us.
3 events were looking at coming to NM, San Diego, San Francisco and Nationals. We can't make it out East of course because it takes to long for the Ox's to pull the covered wagon. The fam is so happy we just got indoor pluming like you big city folks out east.

I haven't gotten much further in the rule book then the encroaching rule, I see it in the rules but have never seen it called in a game?

Wait, you're combining with an East Coast team and you're playing all West Coast tournaments? Sounds like those EC guys got the shaft!

As for encroachment, it's quickly becoming the most abused rule in kickball by Catchers. The wording is very vague and most refs have an inconsistent (or non-existent) way of enforcing it. Most refs interpret encroachment as the torso being in front of the kicker's torso. Unfortunately, this interpretation allows for Catchers to reach their hand out in front of the kicker and block the kick.

As it's written: "The Catcher must stand behind the Kicker and within the Catcher’s Zone & Kicker’s Box. A Catcher may not cross in front of the Kicker nor be positioned outside the Catcher’s Zone until the ball is kicked or until the Kicker has let the ball pass."

Per the rulebook, no part of the Catcher should be in front of or even with any part of the kicker. The rule makes no exception for "torsos," "appendages," or any other BS that cheating catchers and clueless refs like to make up. Per the rulebook, the Catcher's front foot (assuming that's the forward most part of him) should not be even with or in front of ANY part of the Kicker (whether that's his trail leg, a flailing arm, or his torso).

As you can probably tell, this is a huge pet peeve of mine in the Circuit.

[Return of Ctiger]

Yeah, but he's on the WC (unless it's Portland, Maine...and then he's in Canada), so it'll be a few years before he'll need to know any of this stuff.

As of now Portland has 6 guys that have combined with an East Coast team to play in the circuit. Portlandia is my team I'll be bringing to the circuit the circuit, yes you will have to come west to play us.
3 events were looking at coming to NM, San Diego, San Francisco and Nationals. We can't make it out East of course because it takes to long for the Ox's to pull the covered wagon. The fam is so happy we just got indoor pluming like you big city folks out east.

I haven't gotten much further in the rule book then the encroaching rule, I see it in the rules but have never seen it called in a game?

Wait, you're combining with an East Coast team and you're playing all West Coast tournaments? Sounds like those EC guys got the shaft!

As for encroachment, it's quickly becoming the most abused rule in kickball by Catchers. The wording is very vague and most refs have an inconsistent (or non-existent) way of enforcing it. Most refs interpret encroachment as the torso being in front of the kicker's torso. Unfortunately, this interpretation allows for Catchers to reach their hand out in front of the kicker and block the kick.

As it's written: "The Catcher must stand behind the Kicker and within the Catcher’s Zone & Kicker’s Box. A Catcher may not cross in front of the Kicker nor be positioned outside the Catcher’s Zone until the ball is kicked or until the Kicker has let the ball pass."

Per the rulebook, no part of the Catcher should be in front of or even with any part of the kicker. The rule makes no exception for "torsos," "appendages," or any other BS that cheating catchers and clueless refs like to make up. Per the rulebook, the Catcher's front foot (assuming that's the forward most part of him) should not be even with or in front of ANY part of the Kicker (whether that's his trail leg, a flailing arm, or his torso).

As you can probably tell, this is a huge pet peeve of mine in the Circuit.

It bothers him cause he's not quick enough to encroach, and before other catchers started encroaching people actually thought trey was "elite"

[Trey it Up]

You don't have to be quick to run in front of someone as they kick.

[Portland]

Yeah, but he's on the WC (unless it's Portland, Maine...and then he's in Canada), so it'll be a few years before he'll need to know any of this stuff.

As of now Portland has 6 guys that have combined with an East Coast team to play in the circuit. Portlandia is my team I'll be bringing to the circuit the circuit, yes you will have to come west to play us.
3 events were looking at coming to NM, San Diego, San Francisco and Nationals. We can't make it out East of course because it takes to long for the Ox's to pull the covered wagon. The fam is so happy we just got indoor pluming like you big city folks out east.

I haven't gotten much further in the rule book then the encroaching rule, I see it in the rules but have never seen it called in a game?

Wait, you're combining with an East Coast team and you're playing all West Coast tournaments? Sounds like those EC guys got the shaft!

As for encroachment, it's quickly becoming the most abused rule in kickball by Catchers. The wording is very vague and most refs have an inconsistent (or non-existent) way of enforcing it. Most refs interpret encroachment as the torso being in front of the kicker's torso. Unfortunately, this interpretation allows for Catchers to reach their hand out in front of the kicker and block the kick.

As it's written: "The Catcher must stand behind the Kicker and within the Catcher’s Zone & Kicker’s Box. A Catcher may not cross in front of the Kicker nor be positioned outside the Catcher’s Zone until the ball is kicked or until the Kicker has let the ball pass."

Per the rulebook, no part of the Catcher should be in front of or even with any part of the kicker. The rule makes no exception for "torsos," "appendages," or any other BS that cheating catchers and clueless refs like to make up. Per the rulebook, the Catcher's front foot (assuming that's the forward most part of him) should not be even with or in front of ANY part of the Kicker (whether that's his trail leg, a flailing arm, or his torso).

As you can probably tell, this is a huge pet peeve of mine in the Circuit.

My bad, two different teams.
The 6 P-town players are joining up with a North Florida team ( you can figure out who it is) and they took the pick of the litter with those players.
Portlandia is the team I'll be Capt. of with almost all Portlanders maybe 2 guys from New Orleans, we plan on staying out West for this season.
I was in Vegas and know what were up against, right now I would put us just behind everyone but level with Dice Kickball and any other team that hasn't played in a Circuit game.

[JellyDogg]

Wait, you're combining with an East Coast team and you're playing all West Coast tournaments? Sounds like those EC guys got the shaft!

As for encroachment, it's quickly becoming the most abused rule in kickball by Catchers. The wording is very vague and most refs have an inconsistent (or non-existent) way of enforcing it. Most refs interpret encroachment as the torso being in front of the kicker's torso. Unfortunately, this interpretation allows for Catchers to reach their hand out in front of the kicker and block the kick.

As it's written: "The Catcher must stand behind the Kicker and within the Catcher’s Zone & Kicker’s Box. A Catcher may not cross in front of the Kicker nor be positioned outside the Catcher’s Zone until the ball is kicked or until the Kicker has let the ball pass."

Per the rulebook, no part of the Catcher should be in front of or even with any part of the kicker. The rule makes no exception for "torsos," "appendages," or any other BS that cheating catchers and clueless refs like to make up. Per the rulebook, the Catcher's front foot (assuming that's the forward most part of him) should not be even with or in front of ANY part of the Kicker (whether that's his trail leg, a flailing arm, or his torso).

As you can probably tell, this is a huge pet peeve of mine in the Circuit.

Is your peeve that you believe the rule is not called as it's worded, or that it's not worded as intended?