So who saw the rules screw-up in Wednesday's (4-15-09) Padres @ Mets game?
 

I'm relaxing watching the Padres @ Mets game Wednesday night when the following happened:

Mets with a runner on base and Brian Schneider up to bat. With a 3-0 count and trying to bunt R1 over, Schneider takes a high and away pitch for ball four. As he drops the bat to go to first, Padres skipper heads to the mound to talk to his pitcher. Plate ump Paul Emmel breaks it up and we're ready to go with Castillo now up. He takes two balls, and with the count now 2-0, Padres skipper heads to the mound. Again. He gets to the foul line when Emmel puts up his hand as if to say, "Whoa! No can do."

There's a delay of a few seconds, Emmel looks at Crew Chief Gary Darling, who then waves the Padres manager to the mound and lets him continue. Padres skip briefly talks to his pitcher, then takes the ball from him as he brings in a new hurler.

I'm looking at this and going, "Huh?" :eek:

Heck I had to call my esteemed fellow rules nerd Mr. Jenkins and tell him about this. He couldn't believe it, either.

A. No second trip to the same pitcher with the same batter at bat.

B. If for some reason the manager isn't warned by PU on such a prohibited second trip, he's not ejected, but the pitcher must be pulled--AFTER the at-bat is completed, however.

The Padres skip did, indeed, make such a second prohibited trip. He did change the pitcher, but before the at-bat was completed.

Oops. I wonder if someone is going to get chewed out. :D

I saw it, too, and couldn't believe my eyes when they allowed it! Here's a clip:

YouTube - Two visits to pitcher in same at-bat

Someone tell those announcers to just SHUT UP. Their ignorance isn't helping things, either!

Rick Sutcliffe was the only announcer of the three who had an idea of the rule. Joe Morgan, as usual, had no clue.

What I don't get is that the umpires seemed to be aware that it was his second trip, but they allowed it anyway. Crew Chief Gary Darling and U2 Bill Hohn initially tried to stop the mgr. from coming out, but it appears PU Paul Emmel convinced Darling it was OK.

SOMEbody's gonna get scolded. :D

Did they claim the pitcher was injuryed? If so, then a trip would be allowed.

He may have been confused since all players and coaches were wearing #42. Hard to tell everyone apart.

What if Black asked for Time and was granted time prior to Castillo being announced? Would that be considered a trip during his at bat? If Black asked for time as the previous batter was dropping his bat to head to first, the next hitter had not yet been announced. His at bat doesn't start until he is announced. This is why managers wait until the next hitter is announced before changing pitchers, giving the last move to the offense and making them burn a player. I didn't see the game, so I'm just wondering if this may have been why the second conference was allowed by Darling.

No. No such injury was claimed.

For purposes of this rule, Castillo's at-bat began the instant Schneider's ended with the walk. Therefore, Black's second trip came during the same at-bat, which isn't permitted, of course.

missed it ;-)

Was Castillo a pinch hitter? That could change things.

unrelated but why is EVERYONE wearing 42

Had to be an injury claim, looked at box score, no pinch hitter... Very nonchalant by Darling after manager said something to him. No way they miss this one and no way opposing manager lets it happen that easy.



[Checked a couple of sights - no mention of injury or the incident - hmmmmmm makes you wonder (this part posted later)]

Jackie Robinson day.....

To honor Jackie Robinson. His number is retired in every MLB ballpark. Was it last year they started doing that for one day in the season?

Thanks

From what I saw/heard while watching it live, Bob, no, he wasn't.

For the last couple seasons there was a fair amount of player/media debate over who should be wearing 42...some said only one player per team, some said, only the african americans should wear it...then MLB got smart, kept it simple and said, we're all wearing 42, even the umpires. done. best thing they could've done with JR day

I agree. What Jackie Robinson did may have seemed insignificant, but when one looks back at it, it was quite important, and as his widow said at Citi Field Wednesday, he would have been both proud and overwhelmed by what happened.

[QUOTE]They might as well re-write the rule book.

We have had the following:

A run put back on the Board some 3 innings later in the Indians O's game 2-3 yrs ago

Mets/ Braves - Botched Catch / No catch with bases juiced.
Ruling: the ball was retroactively declared dead at the time of the incorrect call - everyone up one base even though a runner passed another and all kinds of action going on.

Now this

Summary: Do not feel bad when us amateurs kick one - It happens

Pete Booth

Pete ...
 

I know you will probably diagree, but everything they did followed one basic tenant: "Common sense and fair play!" The objective of the game and purpose of the rules is to ensure that both teams have an equal playing field and neither team is placed at an unfair disadvantage. With that said, "Why does the rule book need to be rewritten?"

Ask Jim Evans that. He'll tell ya.

Jim is a very great man and he has taught me a lot, but his voice is still only one man's. And sense you seem to know his view on the subject, please share.

His voice may only be one man's, but has has stated more than once that baseball's rules ought to be rewritten in a way to eliminate contradictions, ambiguities, etc. Doing so, he explains, would result in the rules making more sense than they currently do.

[QUOTE]Durham I hear you but we do not rule with "Common sense and fair play"

Example: F1 throws one high and inside. B1 trying to get out of the way but ball nics bat and dribbles out in front of home plate where F2 picks it up and the defense gets an easy out.

Now common sense and fair play would tell us that B1 was simply trying to avoid getting '"drilled" and the ball should simply be ruled FOUL. After all the Offense was put at a disadvantage and B1 was not trying to HIT the ball but simply protect himself.

If we rule by common sense and fair play then why have a rule-book at all.

Many rules make no sense but yet we are asked to enforce them.

At least 230 reasons why.

take a look at appeals. In discussing appeals ALL the KNOWN authorities use the terms "relaxed" / un-relaxed" You will NOT find those terms in the rule-book.

Pete Booth

I ain't broke so ...
 

Well, the NCAA continually tries to clarify their rule book and remove ambiguity and look at how much thicker it seems to get each year. And all the while the rules stay essentially unchanged. The OBR has worked for a hundred years with slight changes along the way, leave it alone.

I am no authority so maybe that is why I ask, "What in the world do relaxed and unrelaxed refer too?"

Part of the reason the NCAA book seems to get thicker is because IMHO they're too concerned about things that may not be as critical as they believe, or because they seem to want to create new things about which to worry every year.

The coaches having to wear helmets now is one example.

Relaxed/Unrelaxed
 

The terms refer to the status of the runner upon whom the appeal is being made. If the runner is making an attempt to return to the bag after missing it then a tag must be applied. If the runner is not attempting to return then the action is unrelaxed and the base can be touched and a verbal appeal made.

If this is correct, and I do not believe it is, then why do we allow the live ball appeal of a runner leaving early to be decided by the ball simply being returned to the base ahead of the runner? Per your ruling the defense would be required to tag the runner and not just return the ball to the base.

isn't there something in the rule where there's the 'obvious' factor where there's a retouch obligation versus simply just missing a base?

either way aren't they both appeals?

they are, but you eliminate the accidental appeal

If you read what I wrote, the concept is a concept applied to a runner returning to a base missed. The concept does not apply to leaving early on a fly ball.

The most common usage of the relaxed/unrelaxed concept is the play at home where the runner misses the plate and the fielder misses the tag. Technically the runner has missed home so by rule the catcher could just step on the plate and announce an appeal. In practice, however, if the runner is scrambling back toward the plate we require a tag of the runner for an out. This would be unrelaxed action.

If, however the runner starts walking towards the dugout, making no attempt to correct his error, this is unrelaxed action. In this instance we do not require the catcher to chase down the runner, but instead allow him to step on the plate and appeal the miss.

Although most often seen at home, this concept can be applied equally to other bases, i.e. a runner slides around second and then scrambles back towards it.

Consider this:
C. time please.
U. sorry coach, you can't make a second trip.
C. I'm pulling him, get my lefty.
U. Okay.

I'm thinking that's a legal substitution and not a trip.

Can't happen during the same at bat that he took the trip. (unless F1 is injured)

ManinBlue is correct.

OBR. This is only true at home plate. If R1 misses second as he rounds it, he can be out on appeal by the fielder simply saying "he missed the base" and then tagging the base regardless if the runner is trying to get back or not. Pro interpretations do not recognize J/R's interp of "relaxed/unrelaxed" for missed base appeals.

So your implying the rule reads:

"No pitcher may be substituted after one visit if the same batters at bat."

I and apparently the crew working the OP disagree.

The rule means you can't go out and "visit".

If C is yanking him, I wouldn't consider that a visit.

And IMO on the relaxed vs unrelaxed appeal, side on the D, don't ever disadvantage the D for the O error.

EX: R2 base hit, throw to retire R2 at HP swipe tag misses the runner, runner misses the plate and is several feet removed, but attempting to scramble back, mean while BR is digging for 2B. If F2 has his head about him and appeals, I would grant the appeal and hopefully allow an out on the BR at
2nd. Umpires like outs.

Whether you consider it a "visit" or not is irrelevant. A manager/coach cannot make a second trip to the same pitcher while the same batter is at bat. Period. Furthermore, the manager/coach cannot try to circumvent this by just changing his pitcher, even if he does so from the dugout. The at-bat must be completed before the already-visited pitcher can be removed (absent injury or substitute).

The crew working this game didn't disagree; they simply f---ed up.

I was not aware that the interp only applied to home. For some reason I had the impression that it applied at the bases as well.

Does J/R suggest it for the bases and the pros just don't do it that way or did I misunderstand?

Is there a difference in the pro interp between a runner who misses rounding the bag and then realizes it and comes running back vs. a runner who slides in and misses the bag while the fielder misses the tag and then scrambles back?

In soundedlikeastrike's example, remember that the D erred also by missing the tag, so we are not penalizing them for an offensive error. If the runner is scrambling back to the plate make the catcher tag him.

It's because they stick all of the stuff they pull out into the DH section. It's huge enough that they think no one will notice.:D


If you're going to call someone ignorant, do it without making yourself look ignorant as well.:rolleyes:

I didn't mean to imply that. I meant to be stating it. UMP25 already answered this, but the pitcher has to complete the at bat before he can be "re-visited." OBR also state 2nd visit to the same pitcher in the same inning gets him yanked - Skip doesn't have to tell us he's pulling him. The only exception to completing the at bat is injury.

It's called a typo. It happens. I know full well the difference between "there," "they're," and "their," as well as "lose" and "loose."

Trust me; you don't want to pick a grammar fight with me. ;)

~Sigh~
 

Why do people try to cover for nothing more than an error?

It is basic:

I am amazed people know little about basic rules.

Amen, Tim! Sometimes I think I'm talking to a wall. This rule is not that difficult to comprehend.

My understanding is he threw 10 straight balls that weren't even close. I bet the manager came out and told the crew "Something is wrong with my pitcher but he won't tell me. Can I take him out now so it won't get worse?"

Considering the crew talked a bit about it before letting the trip happen there had to be some discussion about an injury, and is any MLB umpire going to stop a manager when there is even a small hint of an injury. They are umpires not doctors or trainers.

I didn't see the team doctor or trainer come out. I'd think if the coach was going to claim an injury, he'd have the team doc come out with him.

Just my opinion.

You are wrong and so was the crew. They do screw up in the big leagues from time to time.

Absent an injury or a substitute for the batter, F1 must finish the at bat or complete the inning, whichever comes first.

In addition, if it would have been an injury, the PU should have accompanied the Padres manager to the mound to ensure it was, in fact, an injury.

yea those 4 pages make a big difference, the NCAA rule book is great, and does not need to change.

Well usually after four pages of threads, someone has found out why they screwed this up. (and they did) Any inside info here.

OK, so all the conversation about the 2nd visit during the same batter has been related to OBR. What about FED? Actually had this sitch this weekend in a V game. Pitcher threw 2 balls way outside and Skip asks for Time for a conference (#2 of the game), granted. Next pitch sails over the catcher's head and Skip comes out of the dugout again but before reaching the foul line, looks at me and says "oh, wait, that's right. I can't go out until the next batter can I." Turns around and goes back in the dugout without waiting for an answer.

I know that is true for OBR, but what about FED? I couldn't find anything stating that you couldn't go out multiple times during the same batter as long as you complied with the substitution rules and number of charged conferences.

So FED allows multiple trips during the same at bat?

You can use all 3 of the free conferences during the same at-bat if you want to. I would have reminded the coach of that when he made the incorrect statement.

FYI, both NCAA and OBR are the same as far as trips in the same inning. They differ in the free trips per game number. NCAA has a limit; OBR does not.