Ambidexterous Pitcher
 

Am I mistaken or isn't there also some guidance addresses the situation with a switch hitting batter?
Something that allows the pitcher to switch hands if the batter changes boxes, but only once?

A mind is a terrible thing to lose....:D

That would be contradictory to the rule you just cited.

Used to be such a rule. Now, they've clarified, and matched FED and NCAA -- pitcher must declare.

Dash - that was what was confusing me.
Bob - Thanks for updating me.

Watch this and see how not to handle it:

Switch Hitter VS Switch Pitcher - YouTube

There was no rule then. It's the incident that caused the preliminalry instructions and then the folow-up rule to be written

I was well aware of that. It was still not handled well. I have used this video in clinics to illustrate how to handle things not defined in the book. Make the call.

PBUC issued its new guidelines on July 3, 2008. It reads:

The pitcher must visually indicate to the umpire, batter and runner(s) which way he will begin pitching to the batter. Engaging the rubber with the glove on a particular hand is considered a definitive commitment to with which arm he will throw. The batter will then choose which side of the plate he will bat from.

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.

Any switch (by either the pitcher or the batter) must be clearly indicated to the umpire.

There will be no warm-up pitches during the change of arms.

If an injury occurs the pitcher may change arms but not use that arm again during the remainder of the game.

I may be in the minority but I would have liked to see that batter have to commit to a side rather than the pitcher. They defensive team responds to the actions of the offense, after all.

The problem is that the batter has always been able to switch which side they hit from. While pitchers have too, it's only been recently that ambidextrous has even been an issue.

Without the new rule I would have required the batter to pick a box for each pitch.

I gotta disagree. Make the pitcher declare. After all, even against a good batter, the pitcher wins about 70% of the time. But I would like to hear your reasoning on your opinion.

6.02 (a) The batter shall take his position in the batter’s box promptly when it is his time at bat.

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;

I agree. Tell him to get in the box and if he refuses, it is his actions that help guide the outcome.

There are plenty of things that happen on baseball fields that aren't defined by the rules. Sometimes you just have to umpire.

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. Somewhere, Bill Veeck is spinning at the missed opportunity.

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

Only when my Cubbies are playing. :rolleyes:

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Really?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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):

Quote:

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. ;)