The rules as updated for 2013 include this: Regulation VI(d) - Pitch Count : For the 2013 season, wording was revised allowing a pitcher who reaches his/her imposed days of rest threshold while facing a batter to continue to pitch until the current batter has been retired or reaches base.
Use the example of a pitcher 14 or under, where one of the pitching thresholds is 35, as in 21-35 pitches means one day of rest, 36-50 pitches means two days of rest.
Say such a pitcher throws his 35th pitch during the at-bat of the player who grounds out on the 38th pitch to end the inning (or even end the game).
The coach said nothing at the time. Specifically, he did not say at 35 pitches that "I am am going to let this pitcher finish the at-bat". Later in reviewing the scoresheet, he says to himself, "Oh, the pitcher who got to 38 is really a 35 because 35 happened during that pitcher's last batter. So one day of rest, not two"
This seems to me like "retroactively" deciding to let the pitcher finish a batter over a certain threshold -- not allowing a pitcher to continue pitching. However, upon reflection this does not seem to me to be against the letter of the rule.
I am concerned I am going to have issues about days of rest, particularly at Tournament time, when I just know one coach will complain about another coach saying that "he never said this would be the last batter". Or worse, in regular season, some coach will look at a score sheet and say "39 pitches? Number 35 must've happened during the last batter, so one day of rest." -- without having any proof.
Is it appropriate for me to ask coaches to announce that "this pitcher is going to finish the batter and leave the mounds if he hits the threshold", and if he fails to do so, go with the higher days of rest?
Ontario District 2
Like this post to subscribe to the topic.