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

[UMP25]

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?"

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.

[rpumpire]

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

[UMP25]

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

[rpumpire]

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.

[UMP25]

SOMEbody's gonna get scolded.

[Durham]

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

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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.

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

[Durham]

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?"

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Durham

With that said, "Why does the rule book need to be rewritten?"

Ask Jim Evans that. He'll tell ya.

[Durham]

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.

[UMP25]

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.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Durham

I know you will probably diagree, but everything they did followed one basic tenant: "Common sense and fair play!"

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.

"Why does the rule book need to be rewritten?"

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