Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
Someone move the replies to this thread to ETeamz where it belongs.
PS - ozzy, while I normally respect your opinion, you're way off on both sitches here. MLBUM clearly states that for intent to be an issue it has to be a stationary bat - otherwise you simply have an out. And your statement that this must be LL was ludicrous. OBR's rules about taking the mound are stricter than LL's - if you take the mound, YOU ARE A PITCHER, and must pitch to someone.
I do find one thing interesting in this - there is clearly conflict between 3.05b and pitching limit requirements. Personally, I'd say 3.05b takes precedence, as a manager who might have a pitching limit issue should KNOW this before a game starts - and not put such a pitcher on the mound at all.
|
Seeing as how you are an intelligent poster:
Sitch#1 The bat was released - not thrown at the ball. The latter is a violation. One can argue, "should the bat have ended up where it was" but that's another story. Again, I didn'tsee any intentional act here.
Sitch #2 One of our primary jobs is to avoid a protest when possible. Simply put, once you are informed that this pitcher will violate pitching restrictions if he continues, how can we NOT allow the change? Yes, the coach was at fault here but no matter, the game should not have to go to protest. It is not a PROFESSIONAL game it is a youth or FED game. Professional managers don't have to deal with pitching restrictions like youth, NCAA & FED so of course the MLBUM will not have anything in place for this. It's no different than seeing batter listed twice in a FED game and bringing this to the attention of the coach at the plate meeting.
Comment about LL.
Well, this is a perfect example of the LL mentality. On the one hand, it's all OBR and MLBUM and PBUC. Then when it suits them, it's LL and Andy Konawhaterver-his-name-is and "it's for the kids" as they prance on the bases with their ball bags. My point is that this was an instance, a protest could be avoided.