FOR LOVE OF THE GAME: CAN'T WE LET BYLAWS BE BYGONES?

Fair or foul?

When it comes to baseball, it's usually an easy call. If it's inside the white lines it's fair, if it's not it's foul.

But when it comes to decisions off the field, the line between fair and foul is much thinner than a two-inch, white chalk stripe.

The SEMO baseball conference athletic directors can attest to that after they made a ruling that, in my opinion, was an injustice to almost everyone involved. On Wednesday, the ADs decided to adhere to the bylaws of the conference that were changed last summer, negating a decision made by the coaches.

Prior to the final ruling, the conference was in total disarray.

There was a dispute whether the first games or second games between conference teams would count toward the conference record.

The ADs met last summer and decided to make the first games count since many of the second games were scheduled in the last week of the season and rainouts would be almost impossible to reschedule.

Obviously, the ADs didn't communicate this change in the conference bylaws to their coaches because seven of the eight conference coaches also met before the season and decided that the second games would count because they didn't want the conference race being decided by the second week of April. Conference schedules were distributed to all the coaches at the coaches' preseason meeting.

Before this year, when there were only five teams in the conference instead of eight, each team played each other twice and every game counted.

So the coaches, save one or two, went into the season thinking that the second games would count. And for Kelly, Chaffee and Scott City -- first-year members in the conference -- it didn't matter. They play every conference team just once in the regular season so went into every game knowing without a doubt it was a conference game.

But numerous games between the original five schools -- Cape Central, Notre Dame, Jackson, Sikeston and Poplar Bluff -- were played under the assumption that these were non-conference games.

And that's unfortunate, especially for Notre Dame, which threw its fourth pitcher against Sikeston's most dominant pitcher in what was a battle between the top two teams in the conference according to a preseason poll conducted by the coaches. Notre Dame lost that game, but with its No. 2 pitcher on the mound, beat Sikeston just two days later 6-3 in the Notre Dame tournament.

That tournament was last Saturday and it was the first anyone said anything about the changes to the bylaws. And guess who brought it up?

Sikeston. The team that is now 5-0 and needs to win one of its last two games to win the title and can do no worse than a tie for first.

Doesn't it seem like convenient timing to bring up that it was indeed a conference game after you knocked off the favorite to win the conference?

All week there was a debate -- and the athletic directors were split in half -- whether the first games would count or not. Sikeston AD Charlie Vickery, who is the president of the conference, said the athletic directors would get together and decide what's fair for everybody.

From where I stand, their decision to let the first games stand, isn't fair to anybody.

First of all, there's the obvious reason: Sikeston knew and Notre Dame didn't. That alone wasn't fair. The conference title should be decided between teams when they both know what's at stake. A conference title should never, ever be decided by athletic directors.

Second, think about Sikeston. As far as I'm concerned there will forever be a proverbial asterisk next to its 2000 conference title. Though Sikeston had the most to gain by voting for the first games to count, it can't be totally satisfied by beating a team's No. 4 pitcher with its No. 1 or 2 then getting beat two days later by that same team's No. 2. I'm sure Sikeston would like to win it fair and square.

Third, there's the race. It's pretty much over. Already. And nobody got to enjoy it.

Fourth, there's Cape Central and Jackson. If second games counted, Central would be 2-0 instead of 3-2. Jackson, which is 1-2 would be 0-1, but still alive in the hunt.

Fifth, there was a different option, a compromise, and it was even brought up at the ADs' meeting. Why not, for this season, have every game count with the team with the best winning percentage getting the championship?

I understand the argument that there needs to be some sort of order and that order is jeopardized when coaches get together and override athletic directors, unintentional or not.

And bylaws are written for a purpose.

But in this case, I thought that common sense would've intervened.

But instead, it seems to me that the decision was made on what was best for individual schools, not what was fair for all and not what was best for the players, the fans or the conference.

Bob Miller is a sports writer for the Southeast Missourian.