Is an on-deck batter required?

[tommyleo]

The Marlins had a walk-off no-hitter today. Crazy stuff. See here.

The Marlins' winning pitcher was actually on-deck when this happened. But considering the situation -- two out, bases loaded, bottom 9th, tie score -- he had absolutely no chance of batting in that inning. Yet there he was in the on-deck circle, swinging a weighted bat and wearing a helmet.

Discussing this with a friend tonight, he said that the next batter due up is required to be in the on-deck circle. When I asked him to cite the rule, he said that he had heard announcers talk about this requirement over the years. I reminded my friend that announcers sometimes get the rules wrong.

I could not find a rule mandating Major League hitters to be in the on-deck circle when due up next. Am I missing something?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by tommyleo

The Marlins had a walk-off no-hitter today. Crazy stuff. See here.

The Marlins' winning pitcher was actually on-deck when this happened. But considering the situation -- two out, bases loaded, bottom 9th, tie score -- he had absolutely no chance of batting in that inning. Yet there he was in the on-deck circle, swinging a weighted bat and wearing a helmet.

Discussing this with a friend tonight, he said that the next batter due up is required to be in the on-deck circle. When I asked him to cite the rule, he said that he had heard announcers talk about this requirement over the years. I reminded my friend that announcers sometimes get the rules wrong.

I could not find a rule mandating Major League hitters to be in the on-deck circle when due up next. Am I missing something?

It's in the MLBUM:

ON-DECK CIRCLE
The next batter up must be in the on-deck circle, and this is the only player who should be there (i.e., not more than one player at a time).

[tommyleo]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It's in the MLBUM:

ON-DECK CIRCLE
The next batter up must be in the on-deck circle, and this is the only player who should be there (i.e., not more than one player at a time).

Very interesting! Thanks.

This rule could be read two ways. On first glance, it would seem that the rule specifically mandates the on-deck batter to be in the on-deck circle the entire time the preceding batter is at bat. But perhaps this rule is only meant to control the on-deck batter's position on the field of play if he leaves the dugout (that is, making sure he stays in a defined area when not in the dugout). I have never seen an on-deck batter penalized or even warned for leaving the on-deck circle (perhaps to grab a different bat), so it would seem that the on-deck batter has the option, but not the obligation, to stand in the on-deck circle.

Also, is there a defined penalty for an on-deck batter not being in the on-deck circle?

[bob jenkins]

It's an administrative thing designed to reduce "game playing" and to speed up the game. It's meant to be enforced with a liberal amount of common sense.

[CoachP]

So in the Detroit/Miami game sitch, an umpire should stop the game until a batter shows up in the circle?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachP

So in the Detroit/Miami game sitch, an umpire should stop the game until a batter shows up in the circle?

First, as I read the play, there was an on-deck batter.

Second, I'm not an MLB umpire, but my guess would be that the HP umpire or the umpire on that line, or the crew chief would just make a comment to the effect that "hey skip -- we need an on-deck batter" and continue the game. And this would be only if it was obviously a delay in sending one out.

(Similar to two on deck batters in college -- just a quiet "hey guys, only one, please" gets the job done.)

[CoachP]

Yes, he was there, but I was watching and wondering the same thing, WHY is he there?

In that sitch, if he WASN'T there, would the crew stop the game until someone showed up? (That's how I meant the question to come out, Bob!)

Not familiar with MLB rules, but if a PH was in the circle, is he now officially in the game? Or a better question would be, when is a PH officially in the game?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachP

Yes, he was there, but I was watching and wondering the same thing, WHY is he there?

In that sitch, if he WASN'T there, would the crew stop the game until someone showed up? (That's how I meant the question to come out, Bob!)

Not familiar with MLB rules, but if a PH was in the circle, is he now officially in the game? Or a better question would be, when is a PH officially in the game?

When he's announced, or if he's not announced when:
(2) If a batter, he takes his place in the batter’s box;

[CoachP]

Thanks Bob!

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by CoachP

In that sitch, if he WASN'T there, would the crew stop the game until someone showed up?

If he wasn't there and the umpires didn't stop the game until he was, no one other than an umpire would have noticed/cared.

If he wasn't there and the umpires did stop the game until he was, everyone would have noticed/cared/criticized them for killing the flow of the game/OOO.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tommyleo

Very interesting! Thanks.

This rule could be read two ways.

Not if you understand how the word "must" is used in the rulebook.

[Manny A]

It's entirely conceivable that Alvarez was taking his place in the on-deck circle to assist R3 (Stanton) with a Slide or Stand Up signal should play warrant it. I believe the rules allow the ODB to serve that purpose.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It's entirely conceivable that Alvarez was taking his place in the on-deck circle to assist R3 (Stanton) with a Slide or Stand Up signal should play warrant it. I believe the rules allow the ODB to serve that purpose.

It's also conceivable (and quite likely) that he was taking his place in the on-deck circle because A) he was the next batter up and B) he (or someone) is required to be there.

[tommyleo]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It's entirely conceivable that Alvarez was taking his place in the on-deck circle to assist R3 (Stanton) with a Slide or Stand Up signal should play warrant it. I believe the rules allow the ODB to serve that purpose.

I considered that, but I could not think of a (likely) play with bases loaded, tie score, and two out in the bottom of the 9th that would warrant an on-deck hitter to assist R3 -- especially when he's on-deck in front of the third-base dugout. R3 would typically score easily if the batter reaches first base safely. And even in the unlikely event of a dribbler in front of the mound (where the pitcher elects to try for the force play at home), R3 will have the entire play in front of him and the on-deck batter couldn't get in position fast enough to assist anyway.

On a WP or PB, the batter guides R3. No help needed from the on-deck batter -- unless (and here's is the ridiculously unlikely scenario)...

A WP barely misses the batter, who falls to the ground and can't get up because he tore something while avoiding the pitch. (Therefore, the batter can't assist the runner, as typically happens during a WP.) The third base coach can't help either because the ball caroms to a spot where the umpire or catcher is blocking the view of the ball of both the runner and that coach. However, the on-deck batter sees the play and can assist the runner. Happens all the time!

OK, so there was indeed an infinitesimal chance that an on-deck batter could have helped R3 there. Still doesn't explain why the deck-batter was swinging a bat.

[MD Longhorn]

Why are we looking for a motive or some squirrelly reason that he was there.

He was there because that's what you do when you're next.