Two Pitching Changes Spark Protest

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

If the guy is not in the game until he throws a pitch then how does it make sense to require him to throw a pitch before he can be replaced? How can he be "replaced" if he is not in the game?

You are totally correct and I was smoking something this morning. Sometimes it pays to put the brain in gear before opening the mouth.

[LilLeaguer]

I wonder if the umpires were remembering this 2011 play, which resulted in 3.05(d).

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

I wonder if the umpires were remembering this 2011 play, which resulted in 3.05(d).

Interesting. I had no idea this rule existed. If this had happened to me in a game, I wouldn't think twice, since the pitcher had already met his obligation by pitching in the previous inning(s).

That said, I doubt 3.05(d) has filtered down to lower levels.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Interesting. I had no idea this rule existed. If this had happened to me in a game, I wouldn't think twice, since the pitcher had already met his obligation by pitching in the previous inning(s).

That said, I doubt 3.05(d) has filtered down to lower levels.

It should have filtered down to every league who uses "OBR, except ..." rules.

It's also an NCAA rule -- I had to enforce it last weekend, and it almost came up in a conference tournament game this weekend. Turns out the (new) defensive coach had made a "projected" substitution, so th eoriginal starter was already out of the game when he crossed the foul line.