The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2010, 03:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarecrow View Post
The Blue got this totally right! You can't go back, or it's considered a second visit. They nailed it, and more importantly, he had the balls to call it....He got it right!
The rule states that Mattingly is tossed, the pitcher pitches to that batter then is removed. They kicked it. How could they not know this rules?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:10pm
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
The ejection portion of that rule is for a manager who deliberately deceives the warning to not go back to the mound. The warning and Mattingly going back to the mound occurred at basically the same time. How could Mattingly deceive a warning he didn't know he was going to get until he steps on the mound and simultaneously hears the warning with 30,000 fans in the stands? To EJ w/o a warning, would also not be following the rule.

An EJ there would not have been appropriate and IMO a misinterpretation of the rule.

The crew's only mistake was not requiring Broxton to pitch to the next batter.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwwashburn View Post
The rule states that Mattingly is tossed, the pitcher pitches to that batter then is removed. They kicked it. How could they not know this rules?
That penalty exists when the coach is warned not to back and defiantly does so. McClelland has stated that the crew did not believe that the "No, No" that the PU managed to get out before Mattingly crossed the mound was sufficient for that penalty.

The umpires knew the rule and the different penalties and made a decision. You may disagree with how they interpreted the situation, but you cannot accurately claim they did not know the rule.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrUmpire View Post
but you cannot accurately claim they did not know the rule.
I can. I claim they did not know the rule. Or if they did, they chose to ignore it. Broxton MUST pitch to that batter - they removed Broxton from the game instead. Kind of leads me to believe they didn't know the rule (or forgot it at least).

I agree re: the non-ejection.

PS - johnny ... what the heck does "deceive the warning" mean? How does one deceive a warning? I'd call it a typo but you said it twice.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:22pm
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
If you tell somebody to not do something and they do it anyway, wouldn't that be deceiving?
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 View Post
If you tell somebody to not do something and they do it anyway, wouldn't that be deceiving?
Um... no. Got a dictionary?
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:28pm
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Obviously not. :-)

"Disobey?" "not listen to"
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2010, 04:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
I can. I claim they did not know the rule. Or if they did, they chose to ignore it. Broxton MUST pitch to that batter - they removed Broxton from the game instead. Kind of leads me to believe they didn't know the rule (or forgot it at least).
Again, according to McClelland, the crew's interpretation is that the requirement of the pitcher to pitch to the current batter comes into play when the manager ignores the warning. They did not believe the manager ignored a proper warning. Thus they did not require Broxton to pitch.

And again, you may disagree with their interpretation..their supervisor did...however they continue to maintain their interpretationis correct.

They knew the rule. Once again, you may disagree with their interpretation of enforcement for that situation, but they knew the rule and chose that enforcement for that situation.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2010, 05:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrUmpire View Post
Again, according to McClelland, the crew's interpretation is that the requirement of the pitcher to pitch to the current batter comes into play when the manager ignores the warning. They did not believe the manager ignored a proper warning. Thus they did not require Broxton to pitch.

And again, you may disagree with their interpretation..their supervisor did...however they continue to maintain their interpretationis correct.

They knew the rule. Once again, you may disagree with their interpretation of enforcement for that situation, but they knew the rule and chose that enforcement for that situation.
I have not heard that they said that. if they did, that's even worse. It does not make any sense at all that whether the manager ignores the warning or not would have any effect on which pitcher is required to pitch. If they really said that - I seriously question their abilities to digest the rules. That's not what the rule says, nor could it be stretched to mean what you say they said. I don't buy it.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2010, 06:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
I have not heard that they said that. if they did, that's even worse. It does not make any sense at all that whether the manager ignores the warning or not would have any effect on which pitcher is required to pitch. If they really said that - I seriously question their abilities to digest the rules. That's not what the rule says, nor could it be stretched to mean what you say they said. I don't buy it.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2010, 07:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrUmpire View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1