Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 45, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 December 1887 — CHANGING THE RULES. [ARTICLE]

CHANGING THE RULES.

Important Action of the Base-Ball Magnates of the National League. □lie Scheme of an Eastern and Western League Peters Out—The Brotherhood Pacified. [CHICAGO CORRESPONDENCE] The last tiro weeks have formed a moot rimportint fortnight in the history of baseball. The meeting of the Joint Buies Committee at Pittsburg, followed by the annual meeting of the National League at New York, were attended by results of vitil importance to the game, and this year, as in previous years, the meetings in question were marked by the keenest public interest It would require too much space to state in detail the changes made by the Joint Bules Committee in the playing rules. Suffice it to say, however, that in the main the changes are highly approved, although the general impression seems to be that the alteration of the number of strikes to be allowed a batsman was unecessary, and that it will tend toward the re-establishment of the old order of things, when “pitchers’ games” were of -common occurrence. It was long ago decided by the League clubs, and the players as well, that the public wanted to witness a heavy batting game, and another strike was added to the limit of opportunity afforded the batsman to hit the ball before going to the bench. The change w orked admirably, as the lively character of the games during the past season will testify. There was plenty of good, stiff hitting, and the change found high favor with the public. Now, when everything seemed as it should be, the commitee goes to work and what it did last fall. “Four striked ure too hard on the pitcher, ” says an enthusiast, in defense of the joint committee’s action. Nonsense. One pitched ball more or less is not going to make any material difference in the effectiveness of a trained pitcher, while it will make a very great difference to the batsman. The elimination of that miserable provision, however, which during the past season has given a batsman a base hit for a base on balls, is heartily gratifying to every man who has talked with your correspond•ent upon the subject." John Day’s thoughtfulness in amending the old rule —that of 1886—on this point, so that the fact of a man’s having reached first on called balls will not alone prevent his scoring an earned run, is commendable. A batsman should not be he>d responsible for a pitcher’s error, and if he possesses the patience and good judgment to stand at the plate until five balls and perhaps two strikes have been called on him he shoul<| be given the opportunity, so far as his own work has entitled him to it, to score an earned run.

It is too bad that the committee should not have taken decided aetion upon Mr. Spalding’s suggestion, that a club may hold in reserve for use upon the field, at the discretion of the team captain, as many men as it wishes. The rule is a good one in that it will tend to more rapidly develop young talent by giving them the advantage of training in championship games. If a team captain has placed his best nine in the field, and as a result of their work sees that the game is hopelessly lost or unquestionably won, he can utilize the situation by substituting during the last innings of the game such of his young talent as he desires io try. Moreover, it will have the effect of checking a too frequent inclination upon the part of the players to sulk upon the field, or play indifferent ball, for no ball-player would wish to be disgraced by being sent from the field for poor work and another man put in to fill his place. So far as can be learned, Mr. Spalding’s suggestion of this measure ie favorably regarded everywhere, and there are many who hope it will become a rule. In connection with the League meeting, the Eastern and Western Circuit scheme, ■which has been pretty thoroughly aired ■during the past few days in the dispatches from Pittsburg and New York, came in for its share of discussion, but the majority of ■well-posted base-ball “cranks” refuse to bite at the sensational fake. It was not even discussed. A committee from the Brotherhood of Ball Players waited upon the League meeting, and, after discussing in a friendly ■way the objects of the Brotherhood and the relations existing between the clubs and their players, the League appointed a committee to discuss the advisability -of amending the form of contract in accordance with the suggestions offered by the Brotherhood committee. The League committee consisted of Bogers, Day and Spalding, and the Brotherhood committee of Ward, Hanlon and Brouthers, the two committees meeting in conference. They went over the new form of contract presented by the Brotherhood in detail. The League then asse’mbled to hear the joint committee, and in short order ratified the new form with but few alterations, the most important change being made in the clause relative to the distribution of players in the event of a club disbanding. This was changed entirely the moment the League showed the Brotherhood the absolute necessity of controlling the players in such a contingency. The new contract •drawn up by the Brotherhood’s counsel and adopted proves to be. a better document all around than the old one. The principal changes made affect sections 6, 7,8, 15, 16 and 18. By the terms of the new contract players will not be fined at the discretion of the managers for certain offenses, a graded limit being named for repeated offenses. Neither will a club reserve players for the ensuing season at SI,OOO, as was previously the case, but -clubs will now pay reserved players the salary named in the contract. Players are also exempted from the charges of 50 cents per day for traveling expenses. In the future, if a club disbands, resigns or is expelled, tbe players of such club will not be -compelled to go to another club unless that club will pay the same salaries as the club resigning, disbanding, or expelled. In section 6 the word “drunkenness” was stricken out as being an undefinable term. The change made in this section is •expected to be productive of much good, and will prevent men drinking while off duty. Players may be “docked” a pro rata amount of their pay for time lost by illness from natural causes. If a player is injured in the performance of duty and thus incapacitated, his pay shall go on just the same, but he may be released; such release must, however, be ab-

solute and unconditional. Any violation of contaact by the managers may be held as proper ground for dissolution of contract if their players desire it. Another change provides for a fine of SSO for neglect of duty and does away with suspension. The Brotherhood favored the r lan of sending all fines to the Secretary o' the League, but they agreed to allow this io be stricken out. There is a great variety of opinion existing as to the result of this meeting between the League and the Brotherhood. Said a well-posted man in base-ball affairs while speaking upou the subject: It if true that ths co tract h.n been “modified, altered, and amended' so as to be ent rely eatia actory to the Brotherhood, but bo deit ly have the ch arg b and "modifications" been made, however, that it requires a microscope, backed by a mo t powerful mind, to discover any material diff -rence betwe -n the contract of to-dav and that of the da v before. The failure of the old form o’ contract to prohi: it the sale of a ball-] layer’s release was especially objectionable t 4 the Brotherhood. It gave them broad grounds for dramatic talk upon the “slave and taskmaster" basis. It enabled them to picture to the public the ball player in chains and with the brands o’ serfdom upon his brow : it proved the subject for pitia le illustrations in manv a sympathet.c daily newspaper, and enabled Mike Kelly to aver that the league "had made deck hands of ballplayers.” So far as I can learn, however, this subject was not in any manner protested against at the meeting between the Brotherhood and League Committees. Fair play and justice is defied by every man, in all conditions of life. No fair-minded man wishes to see a ball player or the employe of any government, corporation, firm or individual oppressed cy imposed upon by his employer. The two forms of contract are not held up by me for comparison through any spirit of sympathy with the employeror unfriendly spirit toward the employe; but simply to show that despite the hue and cry raised by the brotherhood over the “one sided and unjust character of the old form of contract,” ballplayers were just about as well protected and justly dealt with under its provisions as they could be under those of any form of contract they might themselves suggest “We want a change,” they cried, “and if the harsh provisions of the contract are not modified in accordance with our suggestions, no Brotherhood member shall sign it.” Well, the contract has been modified. What the modifications consist of it is difficult to say, but it has been modified, and if the Brotherhood is satisfied, the League and the public should be. Now, gentlemen, I say, play ball.

CON CREGAN.