Re: Baseball Contest rule amendment
- From: "SteveA" <stevea@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Apr 2007 16:44:14 -0700
On Apr 4, 7:38 pm, obaiv...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
One rules clarification: the 10 play per day limit is not waived if
one of your plays is rained out. (I didn't specify that either way in
the rules, so I had to decide one way or another. This way is
simplest....I don't have to be concerned with knowing when a game was
called and whether your made a replacement play after that time or
I do see your point, but I submit a better alternative.
Here are valid reasons why, for your reconsideration:
1/ When listed pitchers do NOT go - which is
the case in a PPD/rained-out game - under
the current rules that game is considered
VOIDED and participants ARE allowed to select
another game! Technically, by this rule,
one should be permitted to replace the play!
I'd vote this be the case if only because
- with UNLIMITED number of picks of up to
45+ per day being acceptable for the past
TWO SEASONS, then scoring 10 picks (instead
of just 9 because of a rainout) is hardly an
inconvenience to the a monitor when he is
already scoring 10 picks for all other cappers
who did not have a game rained out!
2/ When listed pitchers do NOT go, THAT PLAY IS
considered VOID by current rules, and we
permitted to either re-bet or select
ANOTHER GAME, but the monitor is ALREADY in
a position where he "has to be concerned
about the TIMING" of a posted pick yet apparently
this really isn't considered a problem!
Since such concern is ALREADY BEING ALLOWED
a precedent is set and likewise selecting a
replacement bet for a PPD "play" is of no more
an inconvenience to the monitor than that
which is already permitted when listed pitchers
do not go - which is technically the case of
a postponed game anyway!
3/ Given the above logic, I submit that any itmes
which similarly may come into play, such as a
rainout/postponement of any bet on a BOTD, BOTW,
bankroll limited play, or daily game limited
play, etc, be permitted a replacement play,
in much the same way and for similar reasoning
that we DO permit a replacement bet on a P/C!
This is easy enough to do for rainouts.
Even if the monitor is confused about WHEN an
earlier game might be OFFICIALLY postponed, as
long as the participant posts a bet on a
replacement game BEFORE it starts - what does it
matter WHEN the the postponed game was officially
The LOGIC is to allow all participants to have a
fair chance and REDUCE the chance that a FLUKE
decides an outcome where it is REASONABLE to do so.
For example, a close race for a monthly contest
where, on the final day of the month, a Saturday,
the leader decides not to cap games or submit
bets but just play "gamesmanship" and sit on a $100
lead - and the nearest competitor - having the
courage to cap and post and actually likes 12 games
but can only play 10 - is break even after 7 early
games but learns around 5:00 pm ET that his THREE
late games have been cancelled due to rain...
Thus, if replacement games ARE permitted, an outcome
is more precisely decided by one's capping skills -
not by a rule technicality which oddly doesn't permit
a replacement in the case of a RAIN OUT but *does*
permit a replacement in the case of a PITCHER CHANGE!
I believe it is worth a shot to make the rules more
consistent...if later this rule amendment to allow
replacement games in INSTANCES of a game cacellation,
somehow PROVES to be a huge headache for the monitor
then it can always be rescinded, and I would have no
problem with that *because* of the monitor-related
reasons at that point should it occur...but I truly
doubt that it will be a concern. The onus would be
on each capper to be CERTAIN the game is CANCELLED
and that he is identifying a "replacement bet" for
the previously identified play.
Note: one should not do so in the case of a simple
"rain delay" which *might* ultimately become a
cancellation. It must already be listed as a
"Game cancelled" or "PPD (postponed)"
As we are using the honour system anyway there
shouldn't be any real concerns.
PARTICIPANTS would be REQUIRED to *CLEARLY INDICATE*
that what appears to be an 11th or 12th pick is in
fact a REPLACEMENT for a cancelled/rained out game.
This then alleviates any concern to the monitor.
If by some fluke chance a game is shown on say
ESPN or MLB.com as "POSTPONED" or "RAINED OUT"
and a participant had then posted a replacement bet
as a result of that info, but we later discover that
it was erroneous website info and that game *DID* go
with listed pitchers - then that ORIGINAL BET is
in play and the replacement bet is VOID.
It's akin to hitting a provisional ball off the
tee in golf. One does this EXPECTING to keep
playing the provisional ball, but if after walking
down the fairway he finds the FIRST ball he hit,
then he plays the original and the provisional is
Exception: when one makes a "BOTW" and it is PPD
until the next day whereby the SAME pitchers do
start, then THAT play is the original and will
count (no replacement just because it was not
played the day before)
Yes, timing *may* be involved - though this is not
significantly different from the timing ALREADY
involved in a pitcher-change game!...Effectively
these are virtually the same thing and should be
governed in the same way IMO...
NOBODY GAINS ANY ADVANTAGE OVER ANYONE ELSE!
Although as shown in my example above, to NOT permit
a replacement play *may* in some cases put cappers
at a DISadvantage due to the FLUKE of a rainout...
I would hope that we would WANT to try to set it up
so that outcomes are dertermined more by "capping
skills" than technicalities which are inconsistent
with other rules...
I submit the above is reasonable.
You bring up some good points. I'll wait and see if any other
contestants have comments one way or the other on the issue.
- Re: Baseball Contest rule amendment
- From: Gary Collard
- Re: Baseball Contest rule amendment
- Prev by Date: Re: Historical lines
- Next by Date: NBA
- Previous by thread: Re: Baseball Contest rule amendment
- Next by thread: Re: Baseball Contest rule amendment