MLB's Max Scherzer Rule - Pitcher Can't Come Set Before Batter is Ready

[Lindsay]

After Mets pitcher Max Scherzer spent New York's early Spring Training game against Washington playing with the pitch clock rules and throwing off batter timing, MLB has come in and shut him down: The new so-called "Scherzer Rule" or point of emphasis states that pitchers no longer may come set prior to the batter becoming alert in the box; umpires are to award a penalty of an automatic ball if the pitcher violates (after being warned or instructed to wait until the batter is alert before coming set).

HP Umpire John Bacon called the automatic ball infraction multiple times (after a warning the first time) during an Angels-Dodgers Spring Training game, with the last auto-ball penalty occurring during the very last at-bat of the game, which ended via a walk-off walk for the Dodgers.

To be clear, this is not a new Official Baseball Rule but instead a new point of emphasis or procedural/protocol change for umpires, stating that the Scherzer strategy of coming set before the batter is ready in the box, while legal just one week ago, is no longer to be permitted and, instead, will result in a pitch clock violation penalty for repeated infractions.

Video as follows:

Alternate Link: LA walks off LA on auto-ball due to outlawed Scherzer strategy (CCS)

View the full article

[The Man in Blue]

I'm not even sure which way to take my comments on this ... 🤣

Not opposed ... but issues with the way it is done.  

You know that thing that is not illegal in any rule book ... call it illegal now.

[Richvee]

New rules always bring unintended or unforeseen consequences, and interpretations and other rule tweaks become necessary as these consequences emerge. I'm sure you'll see the pitching rules wording change in  future rule book editions. Until then, it will be memos, interpretations, and in NCAA's case, video bulletins.    

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, Richvee said:

New rules always bring unintended or unforeseen consequences, and interpretations and other rule tweaks become necessary as these consequences emerge. I'm sure you'll see the pitching rules wording change in  future rule book editions. Until then, it will be memos, interpretations, and in NCAA's case, video bulletins.    

A possible unintended consequence would be Scherzer pitching from the windup without a windup, a la Stroman or Strop, the occasional rear back and throw without winding up or coming set. 

[Richvee]

54 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

A possible unintended consequence would be Scherzer pitching from the windup without a windup, a la Stroman or Strop, the occasional rear back and throw without winding up or coming set. 

Don’t put it past him. 

[ErichKeane]

I'm glad they fixed this bit, but the fact that they are doing it this soon before the season (rather than anything like this coming up while this was play tested in the minors!) is disturbing.

 

On a completely unrelated note @Lindsay: I was sure for about 1/2 the video you were wearing a Mighty Ducks jersey from the movie era 🦆🦆

[Tborze]

20 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I'm not even sure which way to take my comments on this ... 🤣

Not opposed ... but issues with the way it is done.  

You know that thing that is not illegal in any rule book ... call it illegal now.

This is what I was questioning in your other thread. @Jimurray

Scherzer was “set” during a dead ball. When play became live he was ready to fire. 
He accomplished what he said he was trying to do, test the rule and it’s limitations.  

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, Tborze said:

This is what I was questioning in your other thread. @Jimurray

Scherzer was “set” during a dead ball. When play became live he was ready to fire. 
He accomplished what he said he was trying to do, test the rule and it’s limitations.  

 

If he was set during a dead ball, that's a definite "don't do that" and don't put the ball in play until he disengages.  I didn't catch that it was a dead ball.

[TheRockawayKid]

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

If he was set during a dead ball, that's a definite "don't do that" and don't put the ball in play until he disengages.  I didn't catch that it was a dead ball.

I think it was a dead ball. He came set, batter used his legal time out. Scherzer stayed set, and as soon as the ball was put in play he threw. 

In this case, it should not have even been put in play, but I guess the "Scherzer rule" still applies.  

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, TheRockawayKid said:

I think it was a dead ball. He came set, batter used his legal time out. Scherzer stayed set, and as soon as the ball was put in play he threw. 

In this case, it should not have even been put in play, but I guess the "Scherzer rule" still applies.  

What rule prevents putting the ball in play with a set pitcher?

[Tborze]

41 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

What rule prevents putting the ball in play with a set pitcher?

FED 5-1-4 ?

…in a legal pitching position.  

6-1-1  The pitcher shall pitch while facing the batter in either the WU 6-1-2 or Set position 6-1-3 

FED seems to imply that there must be a batter for the pitcher to come to a set position. No? 

[TheRockawayKid]

3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

What rule prevents putting the ball in play with a set pitcher?

From 2019, it was Rule 5.07(a) (page 34) 

 

"Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have
one hand on his side; from this position he shall go to his set
position as defined in Rule 5.07(a)(2) without interruption and
in one continuous motion"

Essentially, if the ball is dead, the pitcher still has to have hands apart when the ball is put back in play. 

This happened in the 2011 NLCS, Game 4. (LINK TO CORRECT TIME) With the count 0-2 and two outs, the batter had requested and was granted time after the pitcher, Octavio Dotel, had come set. Dotel held the set, and the ball was put in play. When the ball was put in play, 3B umpire Gary Darling called time, even before Dotel threw the pitch (a third strike to end the inning). 

Edited March 14, 2023 by TheRockawayKid
edit to add MLB rule link.

[Jimurray]

19 minutes ago, TheRockawayKid said:

From 2019, it was Rule 5.07(a) (page 34) 

 

"Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have
one hand on his side; from this position he shall go to his set
position as defined in Rule 5.07(a)(2) without interruption and
in one continuous motion"

Essentially, if the ball is dead, the pitcher still has to have hands apart when the ball is put back in play. 

This happened in the 2011 NLCS, Game 4. (LINK TO CORRECT TIME) With the count 0-2 and two outs, the batter had requested and was granted time after the pitcher, Octavio Dotel, had come set. Dotel held the set, and the ball was put in play. When the ball was put in play, 3B umpire Gary Darling called time, even before Dotel threw the pitch (a third strike to end the inning). 

I and the other 3 umps at that game did/do not read the rule that way. But it probably would good game management and MLB has made it a mechanic. But would your statement be correct for a sideways or square windup pitcher who takes the rubber with hands together?

[TheRockawayKid]

19 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I and the other 3 umps at that game did/do not read the rule that way. But it probably would good game management and MLB has made it a mechanic. But would your statement be correct for a sideways or square windup pitcher who takes the rubber with hands together?

I could be misreading the rule and what I thought was Darling's interpretation during the NLCS. How did you and the other umpires read the situation? 

But I would not say that the statement would be true for a pitcher in the windup, simply because he doesn't need to have his hands apart in the windup. 

[Jimurray]

6 hours ago, TheRockawayKid said:

I could be misreading the rule and what I thought was Darling's interpretation during the NLCS. How did you and the other umpires read the situation? 

But I would not say that the statement would be true for a pitcher in the windup, simply because he doesn't need to have his hands apart in the windup. 

You and Darling are saying the rule requires a set pitcher to split hands when the ball is temporarily made dead even though they complied with the rule to get set. I don't see the rule requiring that and the other three umpires allowed F1 to stay set and deliver the pitch, the PU pointing the ball alive while F1 was set. So Darling educated them or they educated Darling postgame.

[The Man in Blue]

Coming set is part of playing action. You can't have playing action during a dead ball.

Do you allow the runner to lead off during a dead ball? How far?  2 feet from the next base?

 

[Jimurray]

26 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Coming set is part of playing action. You can't have playing action during a dead ball.

Do you allow the runner to lead off during a dead ball? How far?  2 feet from the next base?

 

Aside from what is defined as playing acting and where it can't happen during a dead ball, which I think I could agree with although some violations could still be called, we are talking about staying set during a dead ball. Runner stuff is a red herring but the actual rule only requires him to retouch after a foul ball. Practical umpiring has us not putting the ball in play after any dead ball until the runner is close to TOP base to not gain an advantage. Again, MLB does not care whether the ball is dead or alive. They don't want you set until the batter is ready. They haven't addressed the Stroman loophole of raring back and throw from a windup with no windup while the batter is ready. 

[TheRockawayKid]

1) I don't think there's any harm in telling a pitcher to step off and start over. It's something no pitcher really thinks about, and saves any worries about balks or what is and isn't a quick pitch after a dead ball. 

2) In the Scherzer case, the ball was dead. It wasn't a temporary "do not pitch" as was in the Darling case. So I think it's even more important that we emphasize that the pitcher has to start with hands together while the ball is live. The book doesn't say that last part, but I had always assumed it was implied.