Dodgers/Padres...Rule 8.06

[rbmartin]

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]

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.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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..........

[mbyron]

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

[rbmartin]

"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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

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]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

"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]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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]

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]

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

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[MrUmpire]

Dodgers/Padres...Rule 8.06

Originally Posted by rbmartin

I wasn't watching live

Obviously. It was Dodgers/Giants