Tossin' 'em at Camden!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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.

[johnnyg08]

If you tell somebody to not do something and they do it anyway, wouldn't that be deceiving?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

If you tell somebody to not do something and they do it anyway, wouldn't that be deceiving?

Um... no. Got a dictionary?

[johnnyg08]

Obviously not. :-)

"Disobey?" "not listen to"

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[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

[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.