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.

Was just reading this on ESPN.com and they said MLB said it was done incorrectly. Wow, 2 big mistakes in two days - so much for all the umpire conferences these days - they don't seem to be producing the correct rulings .. ;)

Thanks
David

And besides "the umpire shall direct the proper pitcher to return to the game until the provisions of this rule are fulfilled."(3.05C) and "the umpire shall notify the manager of the offending club that it cannot be done" in (3.05C Comment), what is the penalty for doing it?

None that I can see. Eject the manager, the pitcher that you didn't want to pitch anyway?

That is what I am trying to figure out.

Keep tossing the head coach until they run out of coaches?

Every time Dwight Howard does something stupid, he faces the media. Fieldin Culbreth is a fifty year old man and runs away when someone challenges him. Fieldin has to grow up and learn how to deal with tough questions. People half his age in sports learn how to deal with tough questions. Angel Hernandez is probably a lost cause, but Culbreth damaged his reputation this week.

That is actually a terrible comparison. Howard often does not face the media and part of their job has always been to talk to the media. Last time I checked, that was not the job of the umpires or any official and actually they cannot go around talking to the media freely. I have never seen an umpire after a game talk openly to the media about what was said in many situations and state what they think of the participants they dealt with. And for years it was forbidden totally to even comment to the media even when they were right. I think I can give a pass to a situation that is canned and superficial at best.

Peace

The penalty is tell the manager no. You can see in the video the Astro manager was waiting for the umpires to make a call, and when they do he nods yes and signals to the pen. I don't think any MLB manager is going to stomp his foot and insist they let him do something illegal, to the point of ejection. There's no penalty for doing it because it is simply something the umpire should not allow.

Yes, they screwed up... but not as badly as this post did. This whole thing is asinine. Umpires don't talk to the press. In fact, Angel is in more trouble for talking to them yesterday than he is for the huge gaffe he made.

You can get away with that in the mid-1980's, not in today's world. By not speaking to the press, does Fieldin thinks it would go away? It just makes it worse, with people thinking cover up, or he didn't know the rule. If Fieldin knew the rule, he should have told the pool reporter after the game. He didn't and you know and I know what that means.

Anyone want to try... I give up.

It is not about getting away with it. Still whether you realize it or not it is still kind of frowned upon to speak to the media. If it was similar to your example then the umpires would be talking to all the reporters, not the pool reporter. And I am sure with the pool reporter they can only talk about certain stuff. I doubt Hernandez could discuss only the ruling, not why the manager was ejected. Who cares what the public thinks really. You could tell the public the exact rule and the media would still go on and on about what they think should have happened.

Not that it is baseball but a media person tried to argue with Steve Javie a long time NBA official about what should have happened in the Heat-Bulls series as it related to technical fouls (9 in the game) as if the media person had actual officiating experience. Who cares what the umpires say to a pool reporter? The media will spin that anyway they like to suit their positions.

Peace

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?

The crew in Houston last night didn't get away with it. MLB has suspended Fieldin Culbreth and his crew for 2 games for their misapplication of the rule.

Personally, I have no problem with such penalty. Making an error in a judgment call is one thing, but to me, not getting a ruling correct is inexcusable. Period.

Not quite, Culbreth gets two games and other 3 are fined. Umpiring crew disciplined for rule mishap | MLB.com: News

First replacement F1 ejection
 

So what prevent this?:

Defence: New pitcher - Warms up
Offence: Pinch Hitter
Defence: F1 says "F--- You Blue" - Thus ejected
Defence : Calls for another F1

ps: Yes, this is a serious question

One of the umpires made a phone call from the dugout. Hopefully, that guy gets the worst of it.

I made a similar rule misapplication last night, in a LL Majors game. I'll serve my suspension this evening, by working the PA systems, and gettin' jiggy with it.

Do you have THIS on the ipod?

Mr. Trololo original upload - YouTube

My original post was obtained from what David Shuster of 670 WSCR Radio had said during one of his news breaks this afternoon. He led off the news with this comment: "Major League Baseball has suspended Umpire Crew Chief Fieldin Culbreth and his crew for 2 games for...". Thanks for pointing out that that wasn't completely accurate.

Fielden Culbreth has been suspended for two games. Pretty simple rule. Should have known the rule at that level.

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

Joe Maddon got away with almost this
 

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

well and we're not talking about just one umpire here - they should all be suspended - the whole crew. That rule has been the same forever and is that way at all levels if i recall correctly.

Thanks
DAvid

I know what that means...that he was following MLB's directive that no umpire talks to the media about a protested call.

You, OTOH...

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.

In MLB, once a manager says he wants to protest, the umpires have to meet and make sure that they are correct in their rule interpretation/application (in this case, they were way off), then the CC has to contact official scorekeeper and explain the situation (thus the phone call) to log the protest. Doing that, the CC comes onto the field, faces the press boxes and makes the "P" sign to declare the game is under protest.

If this were a playoff or world series game, that phone call would have been to the MLB representative for verification, then the official scorekeeper would be notified.

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.

He can recite the rule in question to the pool reporter, the mechanics with regard to the incident in question, he can leave that to the report. Frankly, I could care less if he didn't know the rule. An umpire once in his career is entitled to forget a rule or a ball-strike count, it happens. When you try to hide from it right after the game, you turn a bad situation and make it worse.