Two Pitching Changes Spark Protest
 

So, what happened in Houston last night, where Astros Manager Bo Porter apparently removed a reliever who hadn't faced a batter for another reliever? Mike Scioscia ended up protesting the game.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=26989413

My guess is perhaps the wrong pitcher came out of the pen? But that cannot be corrected once he's announced and starts warming up, correct?

Not sure if this is the way it happened... but in the story I just read Houston skipper said he made a pitching change then the Angels pinch-hit.

I just read that, too. I think Porter felt that if he brings in a reliever to pitch to a batter that was previously in the line-up, and then the opposing team announces a pinch hitter, he can make another pitching change.

Ummm, wrong! And I can't believe four MLUs fell for that.

I believe that rule applies to the starter and the relief pitchers, after the ball has been made live and a pitch has been thrown. Not totally sure however, it is also not totally clear either. 3.05 a,b,c

I wish the Astros had won so the protest would have played out. I think the rules are clear in OBR that an announced pitcher must pitch to a batter unless injured.

But was he announced? Was he in the line-up? The only possible explanation I have is that the umpires didn't consider the lefty in the line-up.

For the starter on the lineup card, yes. For substitues, I don't believe that it is clear as you say. The substitute officially becomes the new pitcher after he has thrown a pitch. Not necessarily when he takes his place at the mound.

OBR 3.05-a, b, c. The penalty is not clear and it seems as though it results in the substitute being substitued for, being ejected. The new pitcher is then the one the coach wants inthere anyway.

I am not saying I am right but, I am saying it is not as clear as it seems.

Seems clear to me:

I don't see any ejection authorized either; looks like it's a "fix it":

3.05C is referring to a substitution of a pitcher that is in the game and has not fulfilled the pitching to a batter rule. This not about substituting for a pitcher that is not yet ofiicially in the game. Which is what happened and is the subject of discussion.

Was the lefty warming up considered officially in the game because he was warming up or announced/indicated as the next pitcher? That is the question here.

That's what I thought 3.08(a)(1) answered. You know a lot more about this than I do, jicecone, so I'm sure I'm wrong; what am I missing here?

Actually I still have some research to do myself. And thats is why I say it is not as clear as it reads.

The rule you referenced is for an unannounced sub. You don't need that rule for a sub that IS announced.

For those wondering whether he was announced or not, check the box score. He is in there (Wright). He would not have been allowed to pitch later. It's very clear he was announced and substituted for before throwing any pitches (the box even shows him with a 0 pitch count).

Then the rules state that "once the improper pitcher delivers a pitch he becomes the proper pitcher".

It sounds like the umpire is supposed to prevent this however, there is no penalty, and if the coach wants to substitute a new picther , then he becomes legal after the first pitch.

Yes I agree that Wright was not eligibie to return to the game.

This may apply for when the game isn't protested or the protest becomes moot, but this is no defense for the protest.

All that's saying is that if you don't catch it, and they start pitching, they are no longer improper.

There's no mechanism in the rules to legally and knowingly allow what happened to happen, other than injury - which didn't happen.