But shouldn't the NH team try to actually WIN the game, rather than purposely throwing the game simply because they know that, by not letting the VT team bat again, they could protest the game and win NOT on the field, but rather by the rules committee?
The vermont TEAM didn't screw up, the vermont COACH screwed up. In payment for that mistake, he wanted to concede 3 runs to the other team to tie the game so they would get to bat again, CORRECTING his mistake.
They weren't trying to throw the game, or purposely lose the game -- they were trying their best to WIN THE GAME on the field the only way they could, by tying the game so they could get their last player an at-bat.
The other team, rather than trying to win the game on the field, THREW the game, purposely LOST the game, by refusing to play the game to win, or try to score more runs than the other team.
In a normal game, if you were ahead by one run in the last inning, and you were at the heart of the lineup of the other team, you might walk three straight batters in order to get to a weak batter. Purposely putting players on the bases isn't normally part of the game, and could be a "mockery".
Well, in this case, because of the rules, in order to win the game the team had to actually let the other team score a couple of runs in order to have a chance to win. Not really different from walking the bases loaded.
The other team purposely LOST the game. That is a mockery of the game, purposely losing so you can protest and win by forfeit.
You make good points - while I don't have a problem with what the NH coach did, I concede that there is a strong argument for the other side as well. It's definitely an interesting case...
The NH coach played to lose the game on the field, and to prevent one of the other team's players from getting to play, in order to win off the field on a technicality.
Morally the NH coach has no case - unless "winning is everything" is your idea of morality.