Ejection, ensuing fun, and a couple of questions

[jxt127]

I would not call a balk. The ball is dead on a directed strike. No runner may advance.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by jxt127

I would not call a balk. The ball is dead on a directed strike. No runner may advance.

I wouldn't call a balk either, but I find nothing to support your comment that the ball is dead on a directed pitch.


Tim.

[TwoBits]

Just found 6.02c:

If the batter refuses to take his position in the batter’s box during his time at bat, the umpire shall call a strike on the batter. The ball is dead, and no runners may advance. After the penalty, the batter may take his proper position and the regular ball and strike count shall continue. If the batter does not take his proper position before three strikes have been called, the batter shall be declared out.

So if I'm reading this correctly, the pitch didn't even have to be thrown, correct?

[UmpJM]

TwoBits,

Under the "old" 6.02(c), the pitcher was, in fact, required to throw a pitch.

I honestly don't know whether he is required to do so under "new" 6.02(c), but with the new provision that the ball is "dead", it would make sense to me that there is no reason why he would need to and the umpire could simply "declare" a strike, a la FED, without the pitcher actually delivering a pitch.

JMO.

JM

Edited to add: I see that SD Steve has clarified the question while I was composing my speculative reply. Never mind.

[shickenbottom]

Remember, this is an experimental rule for 2006. It is the same as Fed. I don't know if the players union, or owners have voted to officially adopt this rule change, and I've yet to hear or see this being called in any Major or Minor league game. This will create a storm when it does, with a couple of ejections in the process.

The essence is to speed up the game, with batters constantly stepping out of the box. Look at the ritual of N. Garciapara prior to entering the box.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by shickenbottom

Remember, this is an experimental rule for 2006. It is the same as Fed. I don't know if the players union, or owners have voted to officially adopt this rule change, and I've yet to hear or see this being called in any Major or Minor league game. This will create a storm when it does, with a couple of ejections in the process.

The essence is to speed up the game, with batters constantly stepping out of the box. Look at the ritual of N. Garciapara prior to entering the box.

I think 6.02d is the experimental rule regarding one foot in the box like FED. There is no mention that 6.02c is experimental.

[shickenbottom]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

I think 6.02d is the experimental rule regarding one foot in the box like FED. There is no mention that 6.02c is experimental.

Twobits the whole 6.02d is directly from Fed and the first sentence of 6.02d says it's experimental. Near the bottom of 6.02d is the "No Pitch Strike" for delay of game. Also in 6.02d it references 6.02c as the penalty for violation.

If I remember correctly the directed pitch has been in the rules for quite a few years.

So now OBR has two rules for the delay of game strike call. One is the "Directed Pitch Strike" 6.02c and the "No Pitch Strike" 6.02d. Now, the doosey of a question, which one to enforce? Hmmmm!!!! I believe the intent here from OBR is to have both in play for a year and then phase one out.

The shennanigans by batters should decrease. Batters can be superstitious in the on deck circle, when you get to the plate, just swing the bat.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Well, I guess that with the new 12 second rule, if Nomar doesn't hop back in the box right away, and stop with the batting glove foolishness, the umpire can now just order up a strike. That would lead to a couple of ejections right off the bat.

[beachman]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

... if Nomar doesn't hop back in the box right away, and stop with the batting glove foolishness, ....

He played here in San Diego the other day. He still does the batting glove fetish routine, but it's quick and he gets right in the box. Instead of completely undoing them between every pitch, he just sort of slaps each wrist. A good rule change.

Now if they can just get the women (girl) tennis players to stop SCREECHING every time they hit the ball...

[UmpJM]

TwoBits,

As jxt127 points out, this is what is commonly referred to as a "directed" (or "penalty") strike. It is defined in Rule 6.02(c). From your description, it sounds like the umpire's application was proper in this case.

This pitch is ALWAYS called a strike, regardless of its location.

There is no rule that requires a pitcher to take a sign prior to pitching. If he chooses to take a sign, he should do so while in contact with the rubber. Under OBR, it is a "don't do that", rather than a balk, for a pitcher to take signs while not in contact.

It is, of course, a balk for a pitcher to throw a "quick pitch" (i.e. pitch before the batter is "reasonably set" to receive the pitch) when there are runners on base. However, on a directed strike, the batter is NEVER going to be reasonably set, so a "quick pitch" doesn't really mean anything in this situation.

If the directed strike is strike three, the batter is out and does NOT become a runner in the event the pitch is not "caught".

The bit about the ball being "dead" on a directed strike is brand spanking new (one of the 23 changes) in the 2006 edition of the OBR as published both by The Sporting News, and, more recently, the MLB.com website.

Prior to the change, the ball remained live during a "directed strike", but the batter was "dead".

So, I would say no, the pitcher did not balk.

JM

[SanDiegoSteve]

It should not be a balk, because the pitcher does not need to deliver a pitch. The umpire should have called "Time," then called a directed strike without requiring a pitch.

New Rule:

6.02 (c) If the batter refuses to take his position in the batter’s box during his time at bat, the umpire shall call a strike on the batter. The ball is dead, and no runners may advance. After the penalty, the batter may take his proper position and the regular ball and strike count shall continue. If the batter does not take his proper position before three strikes have been called, the batter shall be declared out.

Editor’s Note: the MLB Umpire Manual’s official interpretation was added here. The change is that no pitch need be thrown for a strike and the ball is now dead when such intentional strikes are called, thereby preventing a batter from jumping back into the box and hitting the ball.

[Thom Coste]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

It should not be a balk, because the pitcher does not need to deliver a pitch. The umpire should have called "Time," then called a directed strike without requiring a pitch.

New Rule:

6.02 (c) If the batter refuses to take his position in the batter’s box during his time at bat, the umpire shall call a strike on the batter. The ball is dead, and no runners may advance. After the penalty, the batter may take his proper position and the regular ball and strike count shall continue. If the batter does not take his proper position before three strikes have been called, the batter shall be declared out.

Editor’s Note: the MLB Umpire Manual’s official interpretation was added here. The change is that no pitch need be thrown for a strike and the ball is now dead when such intentional strikes are called, thereby preventing a batter from jumping back into the box and hitting the ball.

I stand corrected. I know there have been some rules changes included in the 2006 edition. Just haven't had time to go through them all. I see also that MLB finally posted the new version on the website.

[Thom Coste]

Originally Posted by jxt127

I would not call a balk. The ball is dead on a directed strike. No runner may advance.

Not a true statement. The ball remains alive and in play (runners may advance at their own risk) UNLESS the batter hits the directed pitch, in which case the ball becomes dead, the strike counts, and any baserunning advance is nullified.

The pitcher is ordered to "pitch." There is no mention that pitching regulations do not apply.

That having been said, I would be at least as lenient as on an intentional walk.