Tossin' 'em at Camden!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

From 8.06 Comment:

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.

I'm pretty sure that there's something in MLBUM/PBUC/NAPBL/JR/Evans that says that if, for some reason, the manager isn't warned that he isn't ejected / removed, but that the penalty still applies to the pitcher (pitch to the current batter and then be removed).

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm pretty sure that there's something in MLBUM/PBUC/NAPBL/JR/Evans that says that if, for some reason, the manager isn't warned that he isn't ejected / removed, but that the penalty still applies to the pitcher (pitch to the current batter and then be removed).

Not in JEA, but could be elsewhere.

My only intent is to illustrate thre rule as written. In the MLB release, McClelland states this is the first time in his career this rule has come up in one of his games, and with a call up at the plate at that. I think remembering the rule as written and taking the time to attempt to enforce it fairly deserves more credit that what some here have posted, especially those who themselves do not know how the rule is worded.

I note that after taking the time to talk with the supervisor, McClelland still believed they enforced it properly as do several other MLB umpires.

[UmpJM]

bob,

It's the MLBUM:

NOTE: If through umpire oversight or inability to warn the manager or coach, the manager or coach is inadvertently allowed to go to the mound a second time while the same batter is at bat (without the manager or coach being warned that he cannot do so), the pitcher then pitching will be required to pitch to the batter then at bat until the batter is retired or gets on base (or the side is retired). After the batter is retired or becomes a base runner (or the side is retired), this pitcher must then be removed from the game. However, because the umpire did not warn the manager or coach that a second trip to the mound was not permitted while the same batter was at bat, the manager or coach is NOT ejected from the game in this situation. It is only when the manager or coach ignores the umpire's warning of no second trip that the ejection applies.

JM

[LeeBallanfant]

What happens if the pitcher who has to stay in the game decides to rant and rave at the umpire and gets ejected. Does he still have to pitch to next batter?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

What happens if the pitcher who has to stay in the game decides to rant and rave at the umpire and gets ejected. Does he still have to pitch to next batter?

Day game or night game?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

What happens if the pitcher who has to stay in the game decides to rant and rave at the umpire and gets ejected. Does he still have to pitch to next batter?

He won't get ejected until ball four on that batter.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Johnson nailed that. Mattingly heard him, but probably didn't have time to process it in the 2 steps it took him to get back to the dirt. Or he just ignored it.

IMO, that's not bad at all for a fill-in who had already had an extremely rough night (pitchers hitting batters, warning dugouts, tossing Joe Torre, etc.).

Mr. Johnson isn't a fill-in... he's a full-time ML umpire - hired at the beginning of this season.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Mr. Johnson isn't a fill-in... he's a full-time ML umpire - hired at the beginning of this season.

At the beginning of the season, MLB announced that three AAA umpires would be promoted to full time MLB positions to replace retiring umpires and that the fourth, Adrian, was replacing an umpire who was taking a year's leave due to an inury.

It was acknowledged that the umpire on leave would not be returning and that Adrian would remain in his spot after his official retirement, however, that retirement would not officially take effect until the end of the season.

Has this changed?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I note that after taking the time to talk with the supervisor, McClelland still believed they enforced it properly as do several other MLB umpires.

So we're supposed to believe that the intent of this rule was that if a manager visited a pitcher, requiring to finish the current batter, and then changed his mind, all he had to do was go out there again? Um ... I think that's absurd and these guys are just CYA.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

At the beginning of the season, MLB announced that three AAA umpires would be promoted to full time MLB positions to replace retiring umpires and that the fourth, Adrian, was replacing an umpire who was taking a year's leave due to an inury.

It was acknowledged that the umpire on leave would not be returning and that Adrian would remain in his spot after his official retirement, however, that retirement would not officially take effect until the end of the season.

Has this changed?

Well...not according to this article.
Four new umpires appointed; four new crew chiefs named | MLB.com: Official Info

It was my understanding that Chuck Meriwether's (on the DL) spot would be filled by a AAA fill-in and another appointment would be made at the beginning of next season.

Maybe not; however, according to that press release, Johnson is on the full-time staff.