Ambidexterous Pitcher

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

It's the other way around in baseball - the only team sport where the defense controls the ball.

Only when my Cubbies are playing.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Only when my Cubbies are playing.

At least you get to go to a great ballpark. I can't do that anymore.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

So?

He can change any time except:

6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when—
(b) He steps from one batter’s box to the other while the pitcher is in position ready to pitch;

In the video the pitcher changed his glove several times and then took the rubber, and batter swapped.

[DG]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

That is why I prefer the batter to commit. I don't concern myself with batting statistics. A batter is considered offensive personnel and by definition, the defense responds to his actions. It's a shame that Venditte didn't make it further.

Many times, a pinch hitter is on deck and pitcher is changed, resulting in change in pinch hitter. Defense has always been the one required to commit.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by DG

Many times, a pinch hitter is on deck and pitcher is changed, resulting in change in pinch hitter. Defense has always been the one required to commit.

An on deck pinch hitter is not a pinch hitter yet.

[justanotherblue]

Being this was a MiLB game, per PBUC 6.15

"In the rare occassion of an ambidextrous pitcher, the pitcher and the batter may each change position one time per at bat".

This rule was in affect at the time of this play. It's a rare as hell event, obviously not a section we read often. Obviously PU either didn't know it or remember it.

This is directly out of the 04 edition p76 of the PBUC Umpire manual 04 edition.

[bob jenkins]

PU knew it, but when does the "switch" take place. Neither had declared, so neither had switched. Thus, the rule change.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by DG

Many times, a pinch hitter is on deck and pitcher is changed, resulting in change in pinch hitter. Defense has always been the one required to commit.

That would be a bad managerial mistake. You always wait until the batter is announced before making the pitching change.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

Being this was a MiLB game, per PBUC 6.15

"In the rare occassion of an ambidextrous pitcher, the pitcher and the batter may each change position one time per at bat".

This rule was in affect at the time of this play. It's a rare as hell event, obviously not a section we read often. Obviously PU either didn't know it or remember it.

This is directly out of the 04 edition p76 of the PBUC Umpire manual 04 edition.

Yes, and both the crew and the PBUC evaluators were cognizant of the rule. However, due, in part, to the issue Bob raised above, it was decided that more definitive wording was needed after the incident.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

PU knew it, but when does the "switch" take place. Neither had declared, so neither had switched. Thus, the rule change.

Venditte knew the rule, evidenced by his request for time and signalling to the PU that the batter can change one time. The crew allegedly knew the rule but it appears that the batter didn't.

Venditte stayed off the rubber until he saw the batter step into the box. It would appear that the batter made his decision and the pitcher responded. That would seem to indicate his switch. The rule in place at the time would have prohibited him from changing sides again during that at bat. No verbal 'declaration' was required back then.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Venditte knew the rule, evidenced by his request for time and signalling to the PU that the batter can change one time. The crew allegedly knew the rule but it appears that the batter didn't.

Venditte stayed off the rubber until he saw the batter step into the box. It would appear that the batter made his decision and the pitcher responded. That would seem to indicate his switch. The rule in place at the time would have prohibited him from changing sides again during that at bat. No verbal 'declaration' was required back then.

No verbal declaration is required now either.

What makes you think the batter didn't know the rule or that the crew allegedly knew the rule? The old rule was "In the rare occassion of an ambidextrous pitcher, the pitcher and the batter may each change position one time per at bat" But "at bat" was not a defined term; no one knew exactly when an at bat started.

You try to make it sound like you would have known exactly what to do, that you know what the rules meant. But the rules were very unclear, there was no way for you to know. The rules were so unclear that the rules were changed to address this exact situation.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by Cobra

No verbal declaration is required now either.

I responded to Bob's statement that 'neither had declared'. In post #7 I provided the current PBUC standard. Both the pitcher and batter must inform the PU of an intent to change. That would be a declaration.

What makes you think the batter didn't know the rule or that the crew allegedly knew the rule?

Okay, maybe he knew the rule and was simply trying to get away with breaking it.

The old rule was "In the rare occassion of an ambidextrous pitcher, the pitcher and the batter may each change position one time per at bat" But "at bat" was not a defined term; no one knew exactly when an at bat started.

Really?

You try to make it sound like you would have known exactly what to do, that you know what the rules meant. But the rules were very unclear, there was no way for you to know. The rules were so unclear that the rules were changed to address this exact situation.

The rule was not changed. It was merely clarified to put the onus on the pitcher for demonstrating intent. Both players involved are still allowed one change per at bat. See post #7.

We have several guidelines to use for batters being 'at bat'. Are you implying that you are unclear what constitutes such?

I believe that I would not have let this matter drag on for several minutes, like they did. At minimum, I would have conferred with my partner and set a course of action that would get the game going quicker. There are numerous TWPs that are not mentioned specifically in the rule book. Sometimes we just have to umpire.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

In post #7 I provided the current PBUC standard.

The current standard is something from 2008...something that was written before the Official Baseball Rules were changed to address this situation?

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Both the pitcher and batter must inform the PU of an intent to change. That would be a declaration.

Once again you should refer to the OBR, not something from 2008.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

The rule was not changed.

Look in the front of the 2009 OBR. Under rule changes you will see 8.01f.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

We have several guidelines to use for batters being 'at bat'. Are you implying that you are unclear what constitutes such?

I'm saying at bat was not, and is still not a defined term. So saying they could switch once per at bat was very unclear. That is why the rules were changed.

[MikeStrybel]

I received a couple emails telling me not to be baited by you. I mistakenly posted that the current PBUC standard involves the ability to change. The video I posted was from 2008 and the ruling I provided followed that game by a week or so.

One of the emails I recieved included this (from another forum):

This is from the 2011 Baseball Rules Differences for 2011.

Pitcher: Ambidextrous: Guidelines for switching arms
Federation:

When a pitcher wishes to pitch with either hand, if a switch-hitter steps into the box, the umpire will require the hurler to (sic) the hand he will pitch with, after which the batter may choose whichever box he pleases. (6-1-1; 6.1.1f).

There is also an important ruling about the FED pitching-limitation rule and how it affects ambidextrous pitchers. In other words, the # of innings any pitcher may pitch no matter if he can pitch with one or both arms.

NCAA POE: 1990[balk]: Same as FED (9-2k; 9-2k AR 1)

ALSO: The pitcher may not switch hands after delivering a pitch, but if the current batter is replaced by a pinch hitter, the pitcher may switch. (9-2k AR 2)

PENALTY: After having d, if the pitcher illegally switches hands it is: (1) a balk with runners on base; (2) an illegal pitch and a ball with the bases empty. (EDITED) (3) A WARNING; (4) an ejection if the offense is repeated (9-2k Pen

OBR: Point Not Covered. However, in the 2009 Rulebook without announcing it as a change OBR does cover it in their rulebook under 8.01f. In other words, they snuck it in without telling anyone.

OBR 8.01f: A pitcher must indicate visually to the umpire-in-chief, the batter and any runners the hand with which he intends to pitch, which may be done by wearing his glove on the other hand while touching the pitcher’s plate.

The pitcher is not permitted to pitch with the other hand until the batter is retired, the batter becomes a runner, the inning ends, the batter is substituted for by a pinch-hitter or the pitcher incurs an injury.

In the event a pitcher switches pitching hands during an at-bat because he has suffered an injury, the pitcher may not, for the remainder of the game, pitch with the hand from which he has switched.

The pitcher shall not be given the opportunity to throw any preparatory pitches after switching pitching hands. Any change of pitching hands must be indicated clearly to the umpire-in-chief.

So, now all 3 rulebooks are in agreement on this issue.

I stand by my belief that this took far too long to deal with. The umpires failed to confer and should have known better. Venditte's ability to pitch from both arms was not a secret. Now, hopefully, other umpires will know how to handle it. That is, if the above quote is correct. As I only belong to this forum, others can attest to its veracity.