Reds/Mets Batting Out of Order - Umps Kicked It
 

9th inning, Mets up 8-3. The correct order was supposed to be Corey Patterson, then Cody Ross. Ross actually hit first, and flied out to right on the first pitch. Mets manager Willie Randolph then came out and chaos ensued. After multiple meetings, Patterson was ruled out (correct), and Ross was sent up to hit again (also correct.) Ten minutes later, they are still discussing whether there is 1 out or 2.

What am I missing? Patterson can't be out twice. There's only one out, right?

Edit: After Ross singled in his second chance AB, the umpires got together again and changed the outs to 1 out. Neither manager was happy, but it looks like they finally got things right. Hard to believe that an experienced UIC like Dale Scott needed so much help to get this right.

Sounds like the Umps didn't kick it.

Bet those guys haven't had a BOO an a combined 50-60 years... and they still got it right.

Sounds more like the Reds kicked it and the officials got it right.????????

Its amazing how people twist things around.

"kick it" may be wrong lingo, but putting two outs on the board even for a moment is a definite guffaw.
It's a simple rule with simple enforcement. I think it's notable when 4 MLB umps don't get this right in the first minute.

9th inning of a blowout, I think they were deciding where to go to dinner and were mailing in the last inning and this caught them well below the top of their game.
Just goes to show the umps job ain't over til it's over

Umpires are not in charge of the scoreboard. They put nothing on the board for no amount of time. Unless you were in the middle of their discussions, you have no idea how they handled it. The Reds batted out of order, the Mets caught it, and the umpires enforced the rule. Sounds pretty spot-on to me.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05112008...ble_110428.htm


"Kicked it" may not be the right description, but "spot on" is hardly correct either.

It really did take them 10 minutes to arrive at the correct ruling.

The other interesting item is that Rob Drake was on the crew. Too bad his site isn't still active-- maybe we could have found out the details of the discussion.

"Obviously (there was) a little confusion, a play you hardly ever see," Randolph said. "I was right on it. I think we could have gotten two outs if I just waited until Patterson saw a pitch."

yes, you sure were on top of it, Willie.
Called it to their attention when there was no penalty, essentially! Wait till the next improper batter gets a hit and then bring it to their attention and you can act like you know what you are talking about.

Randolph makes it sound as if you can get 2 outs for BOO. That's not true, and maybe not what he means. The first improper batter made an out, but his batting out of order doesn't get you a second out. Suppose he's 5th in the lineup.

If batter #6 comes up next and takes a pitch, #5 is legitimized, and so #6 is the proper batter. No second out.

If batter #4 comes up next and takes a pitch, #5 is legitimized, and so #4 is batting out of order. Randolph would have to wait until his at bat was over before calling attention to it. If he waits just 1 pitch to #4, we'll put #6 up to bat, inheriting the count.

Some pros will be going back to the rule book after that one.