Ambidexterous Pitcher

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

A batter is considered offensive personnel and by definition, the defense responds to his actions.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.