Jump to content

Welcome to Fastpitch Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

International Tie-breaker Rule


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1
SpartanIlliniCub

SpartanIlliniCub

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3269 posts
As it stands now, the "international tie-breaker" rule begins during NPF games that go into the 10th inning and above.

I for one do not like this rule. I think the NPF should go with one of 2 options:

1. Get rid of the international tie-breaker rule. Simplify the rule.

2. (BETTER option) Start the international tie-breaker rule as soon as the game goes into extra innings! This would encourage scoring and make the game more exciting.

#2
BashBabe57

BashBabe57

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 226 posts
See I disagree, SpartanIlliniCub. I kind of like that the international tiebreaker rule only comes in after the 10th inning. Two teams have played hard for an entire seven innings and is usually decided in one inning of international tiebreaker. In major league baseball, these professional teams play for nine innings and there is no international tiebreaker. But I do like the international tiebreaker rule to add some excitement to the game. That's why I kind of like that the teams get an extra two chances to score before the rule comes into play. I know that there are some disadvantages to this but I can see why it was put into effect like this. It's happened to my team many times that we'll lose in the first inning of an international tiebreaker and in a way, makes the win kinda "cheap". Many times, games are brought into a tie by dominant pitchers. With the international tiebreaker, teams get an automatic runner on two and then just need a sacrifice bunt and base hit to score the runner. It adds excitement but also takes away the accomplishment of the pitcher and defense who kept the runners off the bases for seven complete innings. So that's why I'm torn. I know the NPF needs the excitement but as a player, I feel each team must earn its win. And I recognize that a team still technically "earns" its win with the international tiebreaker but in my opinion, it's less bona fide.

#3
SpartanIlliniCub

SpartanIlliniCub

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3269 posts
Get off the fence Bashbabe! Which option would you vote for? Or would you prefer to keep it the way it is?

#4
BashBabe57

BashBabe57

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 226 posts
apparantly i wasn't clear enough but i was trying to say that I LIKE THE RULE AS THE NPF HAS IT! i like that the teams have an extra chance to legitimately earn a win but then the international rule sets in to add excitement if the game goes into more than 10 innings. i hope that cleared up my answer for you SpartanIlliniCub.

#5
Hackster10

Hackster10

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Female
I disagree with BashBabe! I personally dislike the international tie breaker rule, but I think it is kind of random that they choose to begin the rule at the 10th inning. Why not just start the rule as soon as the game goes in to extra innings, if they must have a rule? By the 7th inning, in a tied game, both sides are getting tired. Although there is a lot of adrenaline running, a tied game takes a lot out of players. If you must add a runner to second base to speed up the scoring process, it should be at the end of the set 7 innings.

In addition, to add to my argument that the rule should not exist, is that due to personal experience I absolutely hate it when the opposing team wins because a runner that did not deserve to be on second scores to win the game. As a pitcher, nothing is more annoying than giving up an unearned run, but giving up a run to a runner that was "put" on second base is extra frustrating! On the contrary, if my team wins because the runner on second scores, I do not feel a sense of accomplishment, because we did not exactly earn that run either.

Does anyone else feel this way, or is my competative side much to strong for this topic?

#6
BashBabe57

BashBabe57

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 226 posts
Hackster, I think you ARE agreeing with me in a way. I also do not like the international tie breaker rule as a player because i feel that it makes the win for either team cheap, which is what i said previously.

the part that you're not agreeing on is when it should be implemented. i'm saying that i like that the npf has it put into effect in the 10th because it gives each team a chance to win legitimately! but i also feel that the npf needs the rule to add excitment to the game for the fans. as a fan, i don't really like to see the game go into extra innings cuz you can be there forever!!! and i hate leaving a game before it's over.

so as a player i would prefer no international tiebreaker, but as a fan i like it. and as a player/fan, implement the rule in the 10th!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users