2 calls

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by ozzy6900

Yeah, and one of them thinks that I need to find another source for my material!

You know what, there were 54 views and 0 replies when I posted. How many of you "coaches" just sat there scratching your a$$es until one of us REAL Umpires posted?

[Edited by ozzy6900 on May 18th, 2005 at 07:01 AM]

Ask not for whom the bell tolls.

[ozzy6900]

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.

[Tim C]

I put marbles in my mouth.

I promise I just will stay here and share a laugh with myself.

[mcrowder]

ozzy - please reread the entirety of the rule regarding a bat contacting a ball in fair territory. It does not require intent to ring up an out. It requires you to ring up an out, regardless of intent (this does differ from a ball hitting a stationary bat).

Also - I've misplaced the page where it says my responsibility includes ignoring one rule to prevent a protest on another rule. Can you tell me where you read that?

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by mcrowder
ozzy - please reread the entirety of the rule regarding a bat contacting a ball in fair territory. It does not require intent to ring up an out. It requires you to ring up an out, regardless of intent (this does differ from a ball hitting a stationary bat).

Also - I've misplaced the page where it says my responsibility includes ignoring one rule to prevent a protest on another rule. Can you tell me where you read that?

You know what, you are all correct. The batter intentionally threw the bat at the ball so he's out. And what the hell do I care about pitching restrictions, file the GD protest, it's no skin off my wide butt! And the hands are part of the bat etc, etc!

Ad Finis

[mcrowder]

No need to be like that.

If you can't handle being wrong occasionally, don't post. If you still think you're right, tell us why and post the rule. The first sitch I can see the disagreement, as one of the sources is the MLBUM, and everyone doesn't have that.

But the 2nd is crystal clear to me. It may be our job to try to prevent protests based on OUR OWN misapplications of rules. But why in the world would it be our responsibility to prevent protests based on things done by the coaches that might be against the rules (such as putting in a pitcher who had already pitched their limit, using a player from outside the district/area, etc --- that stuff is NOT in our purview, and shouldn't be).

You have a clear cut rule that says if a pitcher takes up a position on the mound at the beginning of an inning, he has to pitch to at least one batter. You are overreaching your bounds to ignore this rule in order to clear up an error by a manager on an item outside our purview. You now have created a situation where the offense can protest your misapplication (or non-application) of 3.05b, and he would be right. "I'm sorry coach, I'm going to ignore 3.05b this time so that you can't protest the other manager's illegal overuse of a pitcher" ain't gonna cut it.

[Matthew F]

In LL they allow the pitcher to be replaced. I have been told this as well as read this (or something similar) on some LL websites. Here's a quote from one:

"The withdrawal of an Ineligible pitcher after that pitcher is announced or after a warm-up pitch is delivered but before that player has pitched a ball to a batter, shall not be considered a violation. Little League officials are urged to take precautions to prevent protests. When a protest situation is imminent, the potential offender should be notified immediately."

In NFHS there is a case book ruling that implies that an ineligible pitcher may be replaced prior to making a pitch even after taking warm-ups.

6.1.6 Situation B: F1 is a replacement relief pitcher. He attempts to pick off R2 from 1B. The offensive's team's coach realizes that F1 has exceeded his number of pitched innings per the state association pitching restrictions and requests from the UIC that his opponent forfeit the game. The defensive team argues that F1 has not thrown a pitch and therefore replaces him with a legal substitute.

Ruling: The forfeit is not honored. F1's attempt to pick off R2 by definition is not considered to be a pitch. The defensive coach is allowed to replace him with an eligible pitcher.

I'm guessing the gist of the rule interpretations are that the penalty for illegal substitution (restricted to bench in NFHS) supercedes the requirement of the relief pitcher to face a batter until the batter is put out, reaches 1st or a 3rd out has been made.

[Dave Hensley]

Matthew is correct that, ironic as it is, Ozzy's best documented, authoritative source for the position he is defending on Situation 2 is one of those stupid Little League rules.

LOL.

[BoomerSooner]

My question throughout reading this whole debate is aren't managers smart enough to realize that if the new pitcher hurts himself during warm-up pitches, there is now a hole in the rule. Sounds very unethical, but as long as bringing him to the mound in the first place wasn't a deceptive move (i.e. to get the batting team to put in a pinch hitter, etc), I don't have any problem with an "injury" during warm-ups.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by BoomerSooner
My question throughout reading this whole debate is aren't managers smart enough to realize that if the new pitcher hurts himself during warm-up pitches, there is now a hole in the rule. Sounds very unethical, but as long as bringing him to the mound in the first place wasn't a deceptive move (i.e. to get the batting team to put in a pinch hitter, etc), I don't have any problem with an "injury" during warm-ups.

The salient point of the rule is not so much that the new pitcher has to pitch; rather, it is that the prior pitcher is now DONE, and cannot return, even though the new pitcher is found to be ineligible.