The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Dodgers/Padres...Rule 8.06 (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/58642-dodgers-padres-rule-8-06-a.html)

rbmartin Wed Jul 21, 2010 06:18am

Dodgers/Padres...Rule 8.06
 
Quote:

8.06 (b) A second trip to the same pitcher in the same inning will cause this pitcher's automatic removal;

(c) The manager or coach is prohibited from making a second visit to the mound while the same batter is at bat, but

(d) ...A manager or coach is considered to have concluded his visit to the mound when he leaves the 18 foot circle surrounding the pitcher's rubber.....In a case where a manager has made his first trip to the mound and then returns the second time to the mound in the same inning with the same pitcher in the game and the same batter at bat, after being warned by the umpire that he cannot return to the mound, the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he is retired or gets on base. After the batter is retired, or becomes a base runner, then this pitcher must be removed from the game. The manager should be notified that his pitcher will be removed from the game after he pitches to one hitter, so he can have a substitute pitcher warmed up.
I wasn't watching live . Was Broxton removed immediately or after facing the batter that was currently up? Was Mattingly ejected?

johnnyg08 Wed Jul 21, 2010 06:26am

The manager didn't have a chance to be warned...from what I saw, he was probably a step off of the circle, Broxton asked him a question, and he turned around to answer it.

Tough. Human nature says, I'm going to turn around and answer the question.

mbyron Wed Jul 21, 2010 06:40am

Dodgers burned by technicality in ninth | dodgers.com: News

rbmartin Wed Jul 21, 2010 06:51am

"The rules are the rules," Mattingly admitted. "Obviously at that point, it's my responsibility to know not to turn and take a step off. He [home-plate umpire Adrian Johnson] just said, 'No, no, no.' I didn't realize I was off."

If I'm reading 8.06(d) right, shouldn't Mattingly have been ejected and Broxton allowed to face the current batter?

rbmartin Wed Jul 21, 2010 07:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 686137)
You're reading 8.06(d) correctly. But the batter had not entered the box yet, so that provision of 8.06 did not apply. It was not the case that "the same batter was at bat" during the second visit, because nobody was at bat yet.

O.K. Thanks.

mbyron Wed Jul 21, 2010 07:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmartin (Post 686135)
If I'm reading 8.06(d) right, shouldn't Mattingly have been ejected and Broxton allowed to face the current batter?

You're reading 8.06 COMMENT correctly. But the batter had not entered the box yet, so that provision of 8.06 did not apply. It was not the case that "the same batter was at bat" during the second visit, because nobody was at bat yet. The Giants could have pinch hit for the batter due up after the pitching change.

bob jenkins Wed Jul 21, 2010 07:29am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmartin (Post 686135)
"The rules are the rules," Mattingly admitted. "Obviously at that point, it's my responsibility to know not to turn and take a step off. He [home-plate umpire Adrian Johnson] just said, 'No, no, no.' I didn't realize I was off."

If I'm reading 8.06(d) right, shouldn't Mattingly have been ejected and Broxton allowed to face the current batter?

No ejection because there was no warning (or time for a warning). Braxton should have faced the batter next due up. For the purposes of this rule, the "at bat" begins as soon as the previous "at bat" ends.

mbyron Wed Jul 21, 2010 09:06am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 686140)
No ejection because there was no warning (or time for a warning). Braxton should have faced the batter next due up. For the purposes of this rule, the "at bat" begins as soon as the previous "at bat" ends.

I checked J/R on this obscure point, and I agree. J/R has the pitcher being replaced after a second, prohibited visit, "but only after the batting slot has been completed."

They also have the manager ejected only after having been warned that the second visit is prohibited. The ejection is mainly for ignoring the warning, not for the second, prohibited visit.

johnnyg08 Wed Jul 21, 2010 09:24am

So by rule, Broxton should've been allowed to face the next batter, then been taken out unless the next hitter was a pinch hitter that came up after he entered the game as F1?

BigTex Wed Jul 21, 2010 09:26am

By rule, they should have REQUIRED Broxton pitch to the next batter.

bob jenkins Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 686150)
So by rule, Broxton should've been allowed to face the next batter, then been taken out unless the next hitter was a pinch hitter that came up after he entered the game as F1?

REQUIRED and EVEN IF the next pitcher was a pinch hitter.

Steven Tyler Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 686133)
The manager didn't have a chance to be warned...from what I saw, he was probably a step off of the circle, Broxton asked him a question, and he turned around to answer it.

Tough. Human nature says, I'm going to turn around and answer the question.

Actually, it was F3 James Loney that asked him the question. Mattingly turned around and answered to him. However, umpires did enforce the rule improperly.

I suppose all participants in a mound meeting should stand on the grass in the future to avoid this scenario from repeating itseld..........;)

johnnyg08 Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 686178)
REQUIRED and EVEN IF the next pitcher was a pinch hitter.

Got it..."required" even if a pinch hitter....okay.

johnnyg08 Wed Jul 21, 2010 04:48pm

Here's the entire MLBUM interp.

I'll take some time to type out what's written in the MLBUM to alleviate any potential confusion.

7.12 Trips to the Mound

A second trip to the mound to remove the pitcher in the same inning by a manager or coach will cause that pitcher's removal from the game.

The manager or coach is prohibited from making a second visit to the mound while the same hitter is at bat, but if a pinch hitter is substituted for this batter, the manager or coach may then make a second visit to the mound, but must then remove the pitcher.

For the purpose of this rule, a batter's time at bat begins the moment the previous batter is put out or becomes a base runner

A trip to the mound begins when the manager or coach crosses the foul line. The trip ends when the manager or coach leaves the 18 foot circle surrounding the pitcher's rubber.

A consequence of the rule regarding trips to the mound is that once a manager or coach has completed a trip to the mound, the pitcher then pitching must continue pitching to the batter then at bat (or retire the side) unless a pinch hitter is substituted or unless one of the following situations applies:

a. If a game becomes suspended during a manager's or coach's trip to the mound (or after the trip but while the same batter is still at bat), a new pitcher may be substituted when the game is later resumed.

b. If a rain delay occurs during a manager's or coach's trip to the mound (or after the trip but while the same batter is still at bat), a new pitcher may be substituted when the game is resumed following the rain delay.

JaxRolo Wed Jul 21, 2010 05:52pm

The rule says manager is removed from the game as is the pitcher.

Not ejected from the game. There is a difference.

mbyron Wed Jul 21, 2010 05:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaxRolo (Post 686213)
The rule says manager is removed from the game as is the pitcher.

Not ejected from the game. There is a difference.

Oh? Please explain the difference and your rules basis for thinking that there is one.

MrUmpire Wed Jul 21, 2010 06:02pm

Dodgers/Padres...Rule 8.06

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmartin (Post 686132)
I wasn't watching live

Obviously. It was Dodgers/Giants

johnnyg08 Wed Jul 21, 2010 07:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaxRolo (Post 686213)
The rule says manager is removed from the game as is the pitcher.

I just typed the interp word-for-word from MLBUM, I didn't see anything about the manager being removed from the game. Do you have a different interp?

JaxRolo Wed Jul 21, 2010 07:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 686223)
I just typed the interp word-for-word from MLBUM, I didn't see anything about the manager being removed from the game. Do you have a different interp?

Right from MLB.com OBR Page 83:

the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he is retired or gets on base. After the batter is retired, or becomes a base runner, then this pitcher must be removed from the game.

bob jenkins Thu Jul 22, 2010 07:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaxRolo (Post 686225)
Right from MLB.com OBR Page 83:

the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he is retired or gets on base. After the batter is retired, or becomes a base runner, then this pitcher must be removed from the game.

We understand the rule says "removed." The question is, how is this different from "ejected?"

mbyron Thu Jul 22, 2010 08:43am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 686257)
We understand the rule says "removed." The question is, how is this different from "ejected?"

Exactly. With players the difference is clear, since they're playing: they can be "removed" from the game by substitution or by ejection.

There's no procedure comparable to substitution for coaches or managers. That leaves ejection.

RogersUmp Thu Jul 22, 2010 01:32pm

Remove
 
When the rule states anyone is to be removed from the game (not by manager's choice) that is the same as ejection. Forced is another appropriate verb here. Maybe ejection only means physically ejected into the air landing somewhere out of the field of play?:rolleyes:

JaxRolo Thu Jul 22, 2010 04:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogersUmp (Post 686300)
When the rule states anyone is to be removed from the game (not by manager's choice) that is the same as ejection. Forced is another appropriate verb here. Maybe ejection only means physically ejected into the air landing somewhere out of the field of play?:rolleyes:

I disagree.

you can remove a coach by restricting him to the dugout. He can't comeback on the field for any reason except for an injury.

Welpe Thu Jul 22, 2010 04:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaxRolo (Post 686320)
I disagree.

you can remove a coach by restricting him to the dugout. He can't comeback on the field for any reason except for an injury.

OK but this game wasn't played under Fed rules.

MrUmpire Thu Jul 22, 2010 04:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaxRolo (Post 686320)
I disagree.

you can remove a coach by restricting him to the dugout. He can't comeback on the field for any reason except for an injury.


When have you ever seen a major league manager restricted to the dugout? Remember, we are speaking of OBR, rules written and owned by Major League Baseball.

UmpJM Thu Jul 22, 2010 04:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaxRolo (Post 686320)
I disagree.

you can remove a coach by restricting him to the dugout. He can't comeback on the field for any reason except for an injury.

Jax,

Please tell me you're kidding.

JM

johnnyg08 Thu Jul 22, 2010 04:38pm

They should be consistent though and use the term "eject" instead of "remove" that can have several meanings...in fact the MLBUM term uses remove, not eject too.

mbyron Thu Jul 22, 2010 04:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) (Post 686331)
Jax,

Please tell me you're kidding.

JM

He's not kidding, though he might be a troll.

He's also wrong. Restricting a coach to the dugout is NOT removing him from the game, since he can continue to perform most coaching functions from there.

AAUA96 Thu Jul 22, 2010 05:10pm

Remove - not the same as eject
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 686257)
We understand the rule says "removed." The question is, how is this different from "ejected?"

The pitcher that is "removed" may stay in the dug out for the rest of the game. A pitcher that is "ejected" may not be in the dug out.

Doesn't happen that often - but it did to me once.

Walt

MrUmpire Thu Jul 22, 2010 05:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AAUA96 (Post 686342)
The pitcher that is "removed" may stay in the dug out for the rest of the game. A pitcher that is "ejected" may not be in the dug out.

Doesn't happen that often - but it did to me once.

Walt

Under which rule enforced in what league?

You do understand that we are discussing a Major League situation, right?

UmpJM Thu Jul 22, 2010 05:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 686335)
He's not kidding, though he might be a troll.

He's also wrong. Restricting a coach to the dugout is NOT removing him from the game, since he can continue to perform most coaching functions from there.

Michael,

He posts more on another board, and I'm quite confident he is not a troll.

He may not be a "rules guru", but he strikes me as someone who is serious about improving his knowledge and his umpiring.

JM

JaxRolo Thu Jul 22, 2010 05:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) (Post 686345)
Michael,

He posts more on another board, and I'm quite confident he is not a troll.

He may not be a "rules guru", but he strikes me as someone who is serious about improving his knowledge and his umpiring.

JM

Thanks UmpJM,

You are correct in your assessment. I am not a rules guru. I have been doing this less than a year. But I am always on the boards trying to learn and I always have a rules book with me and I do read it. I have moved up in our organization rapidly.


The Restriction thing was an idea i threw out there. Not a good idea :(

I still say there is a difference between Removing and Ejecting but don't know how you would remove a coach without ejection so ejection it is!

bob jenkins Fri Jul 23, 2010 08:08am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrUmpire (Post 686344)
Under which rule enforced in what league?

You do understand that we are discussing a Major League situation, right?

Under the very rule we are discussing, I agree that the pitcher is REMOVED -- becasue of the second visit in an inning. He may stay on the bench.

For the mamager / coach, there's no such thing as "removal" that's different from "ejection" (except maybe in post-game administration / penalties administered by the league).

MrUmpire Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:19pm

I was speaking to the ejection/removal of the manager.

Last night one AA umpire explained his opinion: "Removal is done only verbally, ejection is signalled physically along with the verbal. Nothing else is different."

JaxRolo Fri Jul 23, 2010 07:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrUmpire (Post 686424)
I was speaking to the ejection/removal of the manager.

Last night one AA umpire explained his opinion: "Removal is done only verbally, ejection is signalled physically along with the verbal. Nothing else is different."

I like this opinion. :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1