Which rule takes precedent?

[Guest Joe]

Question about MLB rules:

 

I thought about this little conundrum after a 2013 game in which a pitcher was substituted before he faced one batter ( Rule 3.05 (b) says that a pitcher must face at least one hitter before he can come out of the game, unless he's injured.  The pitcher in the game was not injured, so taking him out before facing a batter was a violation of the rule. 

 

BUT

 

what if Bo Porter (the manager who made the illegal switch), simply went back to the mound a second time?  Bruce Bochy caught Don Mattingly a few years back trying to make a second trip to the mound to the same pitcher in the same inning, requiring Mattingly to change pitchers on the spot (

 

So if I'm a manager, I bring in a new pitcher, see that the opposing manager is putting in a pinch hitter, and decide that I want ANOTHER new pitcher.  The rules state that I cannot take him out yet, since he's not hurt, and he hasn't faced a batter, so instead, I circumvent the rule, leave the mound, and immediately get right back on.  Do I have to change the pitcher, or can I not change the pitcher?

 

[baseballfan]

The answer to your question is found in Official Baseball Rule 8.06 ( c ) and (d). Here is a way to summarize:

 

If the pitcher has NOT yet faced a batter, the manager may not make a 2nd trip to the mound until the pitcher has faced at least one batter or PH. In other words, rule 3.05 (b) takes precedence.

 

If the pitcher HAS faced at least one batter, the manager may still not make a 2nd trip to the mound during the same at-bat unless a PH has been brought in. That's where rule 8.06 ( c ) and (d) comes in.

[Replacematt]

When it is apparent that the coaching staff is about to attempt a second visit, PU must warn them not to do it. If they proceed anyway, the penalty is ejection of the manager/coach, pitcher must finish the PA, and then must be replaced.

 

Where it gets hairy is if PU neglects to warn...AFAIK, the same consequences apply, plus egg on PU's face for not nipping it in the bud.

[Dash Riprock]

 

 

So if I'm a manager, I bring in a new pitcher, see that the opposing manager is putting in a pinch hitter, and decide that I want ANOTHER new pitcher.  The rules state that I cannot take him out yet, since he's not hurt, and he hasn't faced a batter, so instead, I circumvent the rule, leave the mound, and immediately get right back on.  Do I have to change the pitcher, or can I not change the pitcher?

You get a warning when you attempt to visit the new pitcher a 2nd time.  If you ignore the warning and go out there anyway, you get ejected.  The pitcher still has to pitch to the batter until he is retired or reaches base, but now he must be removed (by the new manager) after facing that batter.

 

Edited to add:  In other words, what Matt just said.

[Guest Jmurray]

When it is apparent that the coaching staff is about to attempt a second visit, PU must warn them not to do it. If they proceed anyway, the penalty is ejection of the manager/coach, pitcher must finish the PA, and then must be replaced.

Where it gets hairy is if PU neglects to warn...AFAIK, the same consequences apply, plus egg on PU's face for not nipping it in the bud.

I think MLBUM allows manager to stay in game if not warned.

[Richvee]

We all know the Asrto incident was incorrectly ruled. So was the Mattingly episode. Mattingly was never warned not to return to the mound, and, Broxton was not allowed to pitch to one batter and then removed. 

[Replacematt]

We all know the Asrto incident was incorrectly ruled. So was the Mattingly episode. Mattingly was never warned not to return to the mound, and, Broxton was not allowed to pitch to one batter and then removed. 

 

I think Mattingly was--it just so happened so quickly that he didn't realize he was being warned.

[Richvee]

 

We all know the Asrto incident was incorrectly ruled. So was the Mattingly episode. Mattingly was never warned not to return to the mound, and, Broxton was not allowed to pitch to one batter and then removed. 

 

I think Mattingly was--it just so happened so quickly that he didn't realize he was being warned.

 

Maybe he was. Fact is, they still missed the rule. Broxton should have had to face one batter, or one out. And he didn't. 

[mjr_2013]

-

[Replacematt]

While we're playing the "What if" game, what if the manager tells said pitcher to intentionally eject himself? Go to the nearest umpire and say "F--- you!" and then slam your glove or hat down.

 

Could we award the batter first potentially??

 

How does a batter become a runner?

[mjr_2013]

On 2/17/2014 at 11:11 PM, Matt said:

-

[Replacematt]

How does a batter become a runner? That is spelled out in the rules. 9.01c does not apply.

[johnnyg08]

I'd be applying 9.01© probably, but it would at the very least cross my mind to award the batter first if a coach decided to circumvent a rule by intentionally getting his pitcher ejected.

Before you apply 9.01c it would be a good idea to know the rules that are chronologically prior to 9.01c.

Don't create rules.

[JaxRolo]

While we're playing the "What if" game, what if the manager tells said pitcher to intentionally eject himself? Go to the nearest umpire and say "F--- you!" and then slam your glove or hat down.

 

Could we award the batter first potentially??

Are you writing your own rule book? 

[noumpere]

While we're playing the "What if" game, what if the manager tells said pitcher to intentionally eject himself? Go to the nearest umpire and say "F--- you!" and then slam your glove or hat down.

 

Could we award the batter first potentially??

If this is MLB, that would lead to a big fine and a suspension for both the manager and the pitcher.

 

And, hold the ejection until the batter is faced.

[mjr_2013]

-

[cyclonehokiece]

I think you guys see my point, but are focusing on the wrong element.

What would YOU do? I'm not saying I would award a batter first, I'm not saying I would "create rules", but I'm sure as hell saying such a scenario would definitely irk me... I would try to find a way (with rule justification) to punish the busch leaguers who pull that crap... Obviously, in MLB, they would get a long enough suspension to make it not worth it. But in our levels, the punishment may or may not be worth the perceived reward, especially in a high level (say championship) game.

Are we really going to have a "delayed" ejection of sorts? What if the pitcher, instead of ejecting himself, walks off the mound and refuses to pitch to the batter?

If the pitcher walks off, I am suspending the game and let the powers that be decide whether to enforce a forfeit or not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[maven]

I would try to find a way (with rule justification) to punish the busch leaguers who pull that crap...

 

There's the problem right there. By definition, bush league is not illegal. Trying to find rule-based justification for punishing it is tilting at windmills.

[Replacematt]

I don't get this preoccupation by some umpires with "fairness" or "what's right." Our job is simple--enforce the rules as intended. Even if it's unfair, even if it seems to be wrong, that is our job. We aren't the morality police out there.

[Guest Guest]

 

 

We all know the Asrto incident was incorrectly ruled. So was the Mattingly episode. Mattingly was never warned not to return to the mound, and, Broxton was not allowed to pitch to one batter and then removed. 

 

I think Mattingly was--it just so happened so quickly that he didn't realize he was being warned.

 

Maybe he was. Fact is, they still missed the rule. Broxton should have had to face one batter, or one out. And he didn't. 

 

I think you misremember the event.  Broxton had already faced a few batters when the double-visit occured.  Below is the boxscore of the game

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/LAN/LAN201007200.shtml

So if the umpire had warned him (which I'm not sure if he did or didn't), was the rule correctly applied? 

[johnnyg08]

None of us like Bush League.  But not all bush league is illegal nor is it our job to judge what is/isn't bush.

[Replacematt]

None of us like Bush League, unless it gets us outs.  But not all bush league is illegal nor is it our job to judge what is/isn't bush.

 

FTFY.

[Richvee]

 

 

 

We all know the Asrto incident was incorrectly ruled. So was the Mattingly episode. Mattingly was never warned not to return to the mound, and, Broxton was not allowed to pitch to one batter and then removed. 

 

I think Mattingly was--it just so happened so quickly that he didn't realize he was being warned.

 

Maybe he was. Fact is, they still missed the rule. Broxton should have had to face one batter, or one out. And he didn't. 

 

I think you misremember the event.  Broxton had already faced a few batters when the double-visit occured.  Below is the boxscore of the game

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/LAN/LAN201007200.shtml

So if the umpire had warned him (which I'm not sure if he did or didn't), was the rule correctly applied? 

 

My bad..I should have said one MORE batter or an out. 

 

http://www.closecallsports.com/2014/02/baseball-rules-in-real-world-multiple.html

[mjr_2013]

-

 

 

[Replacematt]

 

 

I would try to find a way (with rule justification) to punish the busch leaguers who pull that crap...

 

There's the problem right there. By definition, bush league is not illegal. Trying to find rule-based justification for punishing it is tilting at windmills.

 

 

 

I don't get this preoccupation by some umpires with "fairness" or "what's right." Our job is simple--enforce the rules as intended. Even if it's unfair, even if it seems to be wrong, that is our job. We aren't the morality police out there.

 

 

None of us like Bush League.  But not all bush league is illegal nor is it our job to judge what is/isn't bush.

 

Edit my post then. Take out "Bush league" and replace it with "players", because everyone seemed to hover around those two words when I posted it.

 

So then, you're allowing the coach to circumvent the rule by intentionally ejecting the pitcher? Or having the pitcher refuse to pitch? That was the answer I was looking for, and would have discussed with you.

 

And Matt - is what the COACH or the F1 doing within their rights in the rules?? To walk around a clearly written rule that he cannot take the pitcher out before facing a batter?

 

 

I think you guys see my point, but are focusing on the wrong element.

What would YOU do? I'm not saying I would award a batter first, I'm not saying I would "create rules", but I'm sure as hell saying such a scenario would definitely irk me... I would try to find a way (with rule justification) to punish the busch leaguers who pull that crap... Obviously, in MLB, they would get a long enough suspension to make it not worth it. But in our levels, the punishment may or may not be worth the perceived reward, especially in a high level (say championship) game.

Are we really going to have a "delayed" ejection of sorts? What if the pitcher, instead of ejecting himself, walks off the mound and refuses to pitch to the batter?

If the pitcher walks off, I am suspending the game and let the powers that be decide whether to enforce a forfeit or not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

There's an answer!! A solution! I'm okay with this!!!

 

I posted the words "9.01©" and "Bush league" and it's like I was attacked! I just wanted an answer to a potential issue on this play! Cyclonehokie and noumpere were the only two to give one!

 

 

There's more to learning than just the answers. The principles need to be understood, as well. If you start by barking up the wrong tree, it's not just important to know which tree is the right one, but why the original tree is the wrong one. 

 

Also, honest to DOYC, don't be so dramatic. No one attacked you. I generally will not give answers to people I know are umpires or trying to be. I will ask them the questions to lead them to find the answers themselves. You cannot learn how to umpire without learning how to think through situations.

[UmpTTS43]

This type of situation demonstrates how vital game/situation awareness is. If you have that, you can control the situation before you have to go back and fix your mess up.

Which is more important? Being aware or fixing problems due to lack of awareness.

Answer this and you now know what should take precedence.