strike-out without a pitch thrown

[user2535]

Here's a good one for you trivia guys (and gals)
MLB game a few night ago had batter attempt a bunt on the first pitch, then unsuccessfully attempted a bunt on second pitch. Now 0-2 the manager, realizing batter will most likely swing on the next pitch decides to change his pitcher. At this time the opposing manager decides to change his batter. Now new batter has 0-2 count and new pitcher throws a pitch and strikes him out. I later learned that by rule the initial pitcher gets credit for the strike-out, and the batter taking over the 0-2 count gets stuck with the strike-out. The initial pitcher officially struck out a batter he never pitched to.

[cmckenna]

He threw 2 pitches to him.... the first 2 bunt attempts

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by cmckenna

He threw 2 pitches to him.... the first 2 bunt attempts

Read it again. It's not that hard.

The first pitcher, who gets credit for the strike out, did not pitch to the replacement batter, who is actually recorded as striking out. Thus the pitcher strikes out a batter to whom he did not pitch.

[3appleshigh]

I guess maybe CMC is being a stickler on the Term "batter" technically same batter, just a different person.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

I guess maybe CMC is being a stickler on the Term "batter" technically same batter, just a different person.

Usually "stickler" is used in reference to someone who is sticking to something that is technically correct. In that regard CMC is not being a stickler.

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by user2535

Here's a good one for you trivia guys (and gals)
MLB game a few night ago had batter attempt a bunt on the first pitch, then unsuccessfully attempted a bunt on second pitch. Now 0-2 the manager, realizing batter will most likely swing on the next pitch decides to change his pitcher. At this time the opposing manager decides to change his batter. Now new batter has 0-2 count and new pitcher throws a pitch and strikes him out. I later learned that by rule the initial pitcher gets credit for the strike-out, and the batter taking over the 0-2 count gets stuck with the strike-out. The initial pitcher officially struck out a batter he never pitched to.

WRONG. The batter who had two strikes on him is charged with the strikeout. The pinch-hitter got a free swing.

OBR 10.17 b) When the batter leaves the game with two strikes against him, and the substitute batter completes a strikeout, charge the strikeout and the time at bat to the first batter. If the substitute batter completes the turn at bat in any other manner, including a base on balls, score the action as having been that of the substitute batter.

Try reading the rule book before making an erroneous statement.

Bob

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Read it again. It's not that hard.

The first pitcher, who gets credit for the strike out, did not pitch to the replacement batter, who is actually recorded as striking out. Thus the pitcher strikes out a batter to whom he did not pitch.

You, and the original poster need to read the rule book. You're both wrong about the batter. OBR 10.17 c

Bob

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

You, and the original poster need to read the rule book. You're both wrong about the batter. OBR 10.17 c

Bob

1. I was merely interpreting what the original poster wrote. I made no judgement as to his accuracy. Nor did I care.

2. What's rule 10? I'm responsible for 1.00 to 9.00.

Thanks for your suggestion, however.

[Tim C]

That is exactly how I read Garth's comment. That it "explained" the thought and not the rule.

I have never read nor will I ever, Rule 10.

It is insignificant to an umpire.

Regards,

[3appleshigh]

OH no another agreement, both with Tee and Garth AHHHHHHHHH!

Please don't tel me your my father tee, that would just be too much to handle.

LOL

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

OH no another agreement, both with Tee and Garth AHHHHHHHHH!

My sons go through the same pain as they mature.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

That is exactly how I read Garth's comment. That it "explained" the thought and not the rule.

I have never read nor will I ever, Rule 10.

It is insignificant to an umpire.

Regards,

Many of us are also fans of the game.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Many of us are also fans of the game.

So that's who reads rule 10.

[Tim C]

Rich wrote:

"Many of us are also fans of the game."

RF:

I would contend that I am tied for first for being a fan of the game.

I would also note that I would bet that I could score a baseball game without having read Rule 10. In fact as an ex-pitcher I can even figure ERA.

Having played the game at a pretty good level, umpired the game and havng written about it I know I could do a better job of deciding hit -vs- error than the guys that are scoring currently.

I agree Rule 10 is great for an average fan . . . it still has nuttin' to do with umpiring the game.

Regards,

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Rich wrote:

"Many of us are also fans of the game."

RF:

I would contend that I am tied for first for being a fan of the game.

I would also note that I would bet that I could score a baseball game without having read Rule 10. In fact as an ex-pitcher I can even figure ERA.

Having played the game at a pretty good level, umpired the game and havng written about it I know I could do a better job of deciding hit -vs- error than the guys that are scoring currently.

I agree Rule 10 is great for an average fan . . . it still has nuttin' to do with umpiring the game.

Regards,

And I never said it did.