What a strange rule! I wasn't aware of it.

What's the idea of it? To reduce the number of extra innings?

That seems like too much of a shortcut

LettePonnier: to reduce the overall time of the game. Also, there is a cap on how many visits to the pitcher a catcher can make, or a pitching coach, or something

GingoGumbo That rule is for the majors. It may also apply to the minors, but I’m not sure. The rule Thorn mentions is only for the minors. Both are intended to reduce the length of the game. I’m not a fan of either rule.

Another reason for the rule is that long extra innings games plays havoc with the pitching staff. Sometimes clubs have to send pitchers down to rest and bring up a fresh arm from the lower levels, and then reverse everything once the "demoted" pitcher has recovered. More than 80 to 90 percent of the time, the rule does nothing to shorten a game since most

games are decided in the standard 9 innings. Of the games which do go to extra innings, the game is decided on average after about 12 and a half innings. I think a better solution would be to cap the allowable number of innings to 10 or 11. If it's still not decided by then, then it's permanently suspended game but all of the player statistics count.

What was the outcome of the game you saw, Thorn? Did the team with the runner on second win? And what happens when that runner scores? Does the other team also get a runner on second?

AlannaRobbiani Daytona (the visiting team) had a runner placed on second and managed to score him in the top of the tenth. The Miracle also had a runner placed on second and he also managed to score so the game was tied. In the 11th inning, Daytona's automatic runner also scored so Daytona was ahead by 1 at the bottom of the 11th. The Miracle had

their automatic runner at second and then won on a walk off two run homer to end the game.

Interesting. I did hear some announcers talking about it and wondering how that would play out in the majors. I definitely don't want to see that happen.

may I ask a dumb question: why does baseball hate tie games? Don't most other sports handle them just fine?

As Tom Hanks so memorably said in the movie "A League of Their Own", "There's no tying in baseball!". Well, actually, he said "There's no crying in baseball!". However, in the early days of baseball before there were night lights, it wasn't uncommon for games to be called off on account of darkness or rain or even because one team had to catch its

transportation to the next town. Such games were considered as ties provided that the minimum number of innings had been played. In the 1950s, a new rule was added to the effect that uncompleted games could be suspended for various reasons. The last major league tie game occurred in 2005 game between the Houston and Cincinnati when it was called due to

rain in the 7th inning. The rule was later amended to add rain as a reason to suspend games and if the 2005 game were being played today, it would be suspended in the seventh rather than called. It is still possible to have a tie game in baseball, provided that a) the two teams do not play each other again during the remainder of the season and

b ) a win or a loss would not affect either teams participation in the post season playoffs.

I'm even more confused now

Remember how I felt about ties with Buccaneer Bowl scoring and how that always screwed me up? THIS IS WORSE.

Anyway: I do think starting extra innings with a runner on second is ridiculous. But I think sudden death penalty shots are ridiculous too.

AlannaRobbiani: the mound visitation rule is for the minors also:

<snip>Minor league rule changes are much more extreme. Mound visit limitations per nine innings remain in effect, varying for each classification of play (six visits for Class AAA, eight for Class AA, 10 for Class A and no limit for Rookie Ball)<unsnip>

<snip>Class AAA and AA teams will play with a pitch clock. Pitchers will get a 15-second window to begin their delivery without runners on base. With base runners, they’ll get a 20-second window<unsnip>

and finally, the umpire will award a ball if the pitch clock runs out

or a strike if the batter steps out of the box, under some circumstances

omfg it's like doing taxes

Yes, it’s ridiculous.

LouNetizen I think hockey has done away with ties, but some people aren’t happy about that. I don’t like ties. There should always be a winner and a loser.

this is why I don't do sport. All Hail Sport Queen Lotusceriano!