This is one of those debates that gets resolved then starts up again. For our latest Nose 2 Nose sampling, we asked some specific questions. First we wanted to find out what associations do now vs what you would prefer to have happen. Then we wanted to know how such limits should be set. And, of course, when you have rules, you have to have penalities for breaking the rules.

Immediately below the selected charts are some notes on what the charts might mean, then your comments. Not surprisingly this was a debate that generated lots of opinion, even though there is a very clear direction shown in the polling.

Pitch Count or Innings Pitched Setting Limits... Penalties...

Chart Notes...

• While we also asked for identification by age level, there was not a significant difference among age groups so the numbers represent all ages.
• In the "PC vs IP" chart, clearly Pitch Count is favored. As the inner circle shows it what is used most now. (The "other" category includes votes by coaches or players who might be on more than one team, each team using a different method.) By an overwhelming majority Pitch Count is what most voters want to see happen.
• In the "Limit Set" chart, we relegated IP to the inner circle. For both IP and PC however, the clear preference is to impose both a pitch count limit within each game and per week. To be honest, we have yet to see any organization have a clear understanding of what an allowable pitch count per week might be, or even if it means anything. How many games is that? How many recovery days between outings? This also overlaps with the issues of how such decisions are determined. See current pitch count guidelines.
• In the "Penalty" chart, we seem to have a very determined group of motivated voters. It should be noted that anyone could choose more than one option. Over 1/3rd of the voters included coach ejection in their penalty list, and almost an equal number called for game forfeit. (Some picked both.) Of those who chose ejection by the way, most said it should be for that game + the next game (at least). And while some opted for warning only, another several calld for a warning before ejection (reflected as part of the "other" category). Far fewer thought the player should be penalized.

We received a lot of opinions, several of which are included here. You'll notice as you read through them, that some are for IP, some for PC and some for neither. The debate will continue.

I think that neither is perfect. Inning per week can lead to kids throwing way to much if there are a lot of pitches thrown in the innings, but pitch count may be to low for some and two high for others. Coaches need to know there players and condition level of those players. I coach a 10u team and have 2 kids that I would let go as high as 75-80 pitches depending on game flow, rest in between innings, outside temp, how long since last thrown etc. because they have effortless mechanics and good core strength. I have other kids that are tiring at 40-45 pitches due to lack of core strength/bad mechanics and an unwillingness to work to change so they are usually out at 35-45 pitches with no exceptions. I would like so see no restrictions but coaches/parents are unwilling to police themselves so the will always have to be something no matter how imperfect.

A growing number of people say players develop at different stages/ages but I would rather act on the side of caution than put a kid at risk for future years.

I found players pitching more under the PC rule this year. Depending upon when you played your last game a player could pitch two games in a week. Many teams then only needed 2 pitchers and didn't develop any more.

In youth league, we should strive to get a greater number of players pitching, not just the current stars. Developmental rates are so varied you never know who will be a late-bloomer. There is too much emphasis on game pitching in youth league. There needs to be regular practice throughout the season and guidelines for pre-season and in-season practices. Two years ago I saw where a coach was proud of his junior high pitcher who threw close to 150 pitches in 2 games within 2 days of each other. How did this happen? The pitcher will be lucky to still have an arm in a couple of years since that is what he is being conditioned to do.

IP and PC are a big concern to me but visual and current performance tells me more about the child than monitoring his IP or PC. One thing that always puzzles me is why are the girls fastpitch pitchers not regulated as hard? I've known little girls fastpitch softball pitchers pitching in mutiply games in one day and we/officials "baby" our boys to the end. As a coach I monitor my pitchers in between innings and during the inning to make sure their arms are pain free. No matter the situation or importance of the game once the child's arm shows fatigue I will always pull him! So to answer the question about IP and PC I believe it's fair to use either method but not for the child's health as much is it should be used to allow other kids to work on pitching.

I like the new pitch count rule imposed by LL. It gives days rest requirements per number of pitches thrown. Yes Arms differ but all kids need to be protected from overuse of their arms. Any orthopedic surgeon will tell you that pitching stress kids arms.

Let the kids pitch. Let them develop. Let them keep reaching and striving. I think pitch count is so overrated. You see it every day in the MLB. Coaches pulling pitchers who are having a great game because they have hit a certain pitch count. Warren Spahn did not count pitches, nelther did Bob Gibson, Carl Feller, etc., etc. We are babying these kids. As long as it does not physicaly hurt them. let them play ball.

Until this year, my son played Pony which used pitch count per game and innings per week, starting at nine-years-old. I thought that was very effective because it limited unwise managers and promoted developing more pitchers. I had to monitor his pitching on other teams, so I basically abided by Pony's innings rule, while paying attention to pitch-count as well. Now, playing exclusively travel-ball, fortunatley, our manager keeps pitch counts, and we rarely use pitchers for entire games. 3-4 innings each, 2-3 pitchers a game is common. Sometimes kids may not get enough work, but I think erring on the side of caution is wise at this age.

For our 9 & 10 year old teams, we have a 50 pitch / 3 inning rule per game and 75 pitch/6 innings per week rule. So even if you're below 50 pitches, if you pitch 3 innings in a game, you are done.

In Iowa pitchers are limited to nine innings in a day, and 16 in a week. They also must take a mandatory two days rest if they throw more than four innings in a day or on two consecutive days. the rule is a guideline only. It is nearly impossible to enforce. Pitch counts would be better, but much more difficult to track and enforce. [Editor's note: this is an older age structure.]

Maybe someone should invent an umpire counter with an extra "clicker" for pitch counts. when a player reaches the league/state limit the umpire informs the coach and he is removed from the game. simple. I do realize however that all pitchers are different, and it is ultimately up to coaches to condition their athletes, learn how to train them between starts, and understand thier individual capabilities. Unfortunatley there are are many coaches who just don't [possess the level of expertise, or scruples to do this.

Personally I like the Baseball Alberta revised guidelines. They build in rest times before a pitcher should throw again based on the number of pitches thrown in a game.

Pitch count fails to consider the amount of "warm up pitches" thrown. Some stronger/bigger pitchers are being negatively restricted by the pitch count. Arms conditioned to pitch low pitch counts will struggle to gain endurance and will be limited. Less spotlight on the number and more on the conditioning aspect of the arm will make for stronger more effective pitchers. Proper Coaching is the key. More preseason practice less games in the season will also help

In general, pitch count limits proposed are based on populations of recreational players not serious trained competitve athletes.