PDA

View Full Version : Two trips during same batter


cahack
07-21-2010, 05:58 PM
LA-SF, 7/21/10. Question: why wasn't Broxton compelled to face one batter (Torres) after Mattingly made two trips to the mound during Torres' at-bat? As I read 8.06, Broxton should have had to face Torres and then be removed?

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/4414/mattingly-tripped-up-by-hazy-rules

BrianC14
07-21-2010, 06:31 PM
LA-SF, 7/21/10. Question: why wasn't Broxton compelled to face one batter (Torres) after Mattingly made two trips to the mound during Torres' at-bat? As I read 8.06, Broxton should have had to face Torres and then be removed?

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/4414/mattingly-tripped-up-by-hazy-rules

The answer to your question is right there in the first line of the article.

Broxton did face one batter: he gave an IBB to Aubrey Huff.

cahack
07-21-2010, 06:40 PM
The answer to your question is right there in the first line of the article.

Broxton did face one batter: he gave an IBB to Aubrey Huff.


Yes, but the "first" visit to the mound came after the IBB to Huff. Once Huff completed his time at bat (by being granted an IBB), the at-bat batter was Torres. Mattingly went to and concluded his trip to the mound with Torres at-bat; therefore shouldn't Broxton have been required to pitch to Torres, regardless of whether Mattingly had initiated a second trip?

heyblue26
07-21-2010, 06:54 PM
Umpires got it right.

umpire1991v2
07-21-2010, 07:10 PM
Umpires got it right.

I need this clarified. Because under the OBR 8.06 comment continued it reads after the manager is warned to not go back he is ejected from the game and the pitcher must pitch to the batter. After that the pitcher is then removed from the game. So based on the wording of the rule book they did not get it right.

BrianC14
07-21-2010, 07:16 PM
Yes, but the "first" visit to the mound came after the IBB to Huff. Once Huff completed his time at bat (by being granted an IBB), the at-bat batter was Torres. Mattingly went to and concluded his trip to the mound with Torres at-bat; therefore shouldn't Broxton have been required to pitch to Torres, regardless of whether Mattingly had initiated a second trip?

Why should he? Broxton faced one batter. He can either be legally removed by the manager at this point, or as in this case, the manager can be forced to remove him because he made a second trip to the mound.

There's no requirement for a pitcher to finish pitching to a 2nd batter... why would you think that? The only rule here is that once Mattingly stepped back into the dirt circle, he is now required to remove the pitcher - the bit about pitching to (a 2nd) batter is irrelevant.

BrianC14
07-21-2010, 07:18 PM
I need this clarified. Because under the OBR 8.06 comment continued it reads after the manager is warned to not go back he is ejected from the game and the pitcher must pitch to the batter. After that the pitcher is then removed from the game. So based on the wording of the rule book they did not get it right.

Broxton had already pitched to one batter. That part of the rule has been satisfied. When the visits are made after Broxton pitched to Huff is now irrelevant when it comes to that part of the rule. Upon the 2nd visit, the only rule to be applied is that the pitcher must now be removed. If he hadn't pitched to one batter at that point, THEN he must do so.

I don't understand the confusion here... even Mattingly admitted he screwed up, and stated that he knew the rule, he just didn't realize he'd gone back to the dirt circle.

umpire1991v2
07-21-2010, 07:19 PM
Why should he? Broxton faced one batter. He can either be legally removed by the manager at this point, or as in this case, the manager can be forced to remove him because he made a second trip to the mound.

There's no requirement for a pitcher to finish pitching to a 2nd batter... why would you think that? The only rule here is that once Mattingly stepped back into the dirt circle, he is now required to remove the pitcher - the bit about pitching to (a 2nd) batter is irrelevant.

Brian,
The rule says the same batter at bat. He has to finish that batter before being removed has nothing to do with first or second batter. The batter standing at bat needs to complete his time at bat before the pitcher can be removed.

mr umpire
07-21-2010, 08:56 PM
It has NOTHING to do with being required to pitch to 2 batters. It is about the fact that he made 2 visits to the same pitcher during the same at-bat. The rule is very clear about this. MLBUM is very clear about this.

MLUBM:
The manager or coach is prohibited from making a second visit to the mound while the same hitter is at bat, but if a pinch hitter is substituted for this batter, the manager or coach may then make a second visit to the mound, but must then remove the pitcher.

For the purpose of this rule, a batter's time at bat begins the moment the preceding batter is put out or becomes a base runner.

However, I believe the spirit of that rule involves what may be intentional delay of the game to disadvantage the hitter. Such as 1 visit to start the at-bat. Then, go to the dugout and before a pitch, go out there again. Then, after the next pitcher takes his warm ups, go out for another visit. Then, before another pitch, go out there again. This can easily take about 5 minutes before the hitter even sees a pitch. I'm sure some managers used this method and why the rule was put in.

This is not the case. It would have been a complete misapplication of the rule and bad judgment. Since he took a few steps from the mound and came back, what real delay did that cause? And, it wasn't intentional even though the rule says nothing about intent.

I think the umpires got it right due to what the rule is attempting to prevent. To eject or force him to pitch would be OOO. Not trying to change the rule application, only using it appropriately.

So, for the "spirit of the rule", I think they were right. As to the literal application, they missed it b/c it makes no distinction about how far he has to go or if it were intentional.

24sdad
07-21-2010, 09:56 PM
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Ump's interpretation regarding "spirit" of the rule. I think the suddenness of Mattingly's second trip changed what would have otherwise been Mattingly being ejected and Broxton "forced" to pitch to Torres. The comment of 8.06 states, "...after being warned by the umpire that he cannot return to the mound..."

There was no chance for a warning to occur. I think if Mattingly would have completed his visit and gone back to the dugout, and one pitch later with Torres still at bat, attempted another visit, the outcome would have been different. He would have been warned against a 2nd visit, and if he persisted, he would have been ejected and Broxton forced to pitch to Torres until his AB was complete.

I think it happened so quickly, they took the logical course...two trips and Broxton is gone.

Either way, heads up by Boche (or his staff) for catching it and causing the Dodger closer to leave the game.

johnnyg08
07-21-2010, 10:26 PM
The rule does say that after the coach leaves the dirt circle. It might be an interp from MLBUM though. PU didn't have time to warn. Others have said that they didn't totally get it right. If it was the first batter Broxton was facing, he should've been required to pitch to that batter.

johnnyg08
07-21-2010, 10:38 PM
I'll take some time to type out what's written in the MLBUM to alleviate any potential confusion.

7.12 Trips to the Mound

A second trip to the mound to remove the pitcher in the same inning by a manager or coach will cause that pitcher's removal from the game.

The manager or coach is prohibited from making a second visit to the mound while the same hitter is at bat, but if a pinch hitter is substituted for this batter, the manager or coach may then make a second visit to the mound, but must then remove the pitcher.

For the purpose of this rule, a batter's time at bat begins the moment the previous batter is put out or becomes a base runner

A trip to the mound begins when the manager or coach crosses the foul line. The trip ends when the manager or coach leaves the 18 foot circle surrounding the pitcher's rubber.

A consequence of the rule regarding trips to the mound is that once a manager or coach has completed a trip to the mound, the pitcher then pitching must continue pitching to the batter then at bat (or retire the side) unless a pinch hitter is substituted or unless one of the following situations applies:

a. If a game becomes suspended during a manager's or coach's trip to the mound (or after the trip but while the same batter is still at bat), a new pitcher may be substituted when the game is later resumed.

b. If a rain delay occurs during a manager's or coach's trip to the mound (or after the trip but while the same batter is still at bat), a new pitcher may be substituted when the game is resumed following the rain delay.

boyinr
07-22-2010, 02:18 AM
ESPN.com news services

Umpires in Tuesday's Dodgers-Giants game erred in forcing Jonathan Broxton from the game, a major league official told ESPN's Tim Kurkjian.

The official said the rule that requires a pitcher to leave the game after two mound visits should have been superseded by an adendum to the rule. Rule 8.06 says if two mound visits occur while the same batter is up, the umpires must eject the manager and the pitcher must face the batter. After the batter, the pitcher should be removed.

Rule 8.06(b) states: "A second trip to the same pitcher in the same inning will cause this pitcher's automatic removal from the game."

However, Rule 8.06 Comment says: "In a case where a manager has made his first trip to the mound and then returns the second time to the mound in the same inning with the same pitcher in the game and the same batter at bat, after being warned by the umpire that he cannot return to the mound, the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he is retired or gets on base. After the batter is retired, or becomes a baserunner, then this pitcher must be removed from the game."

The mistake was discovered after the game in a rehash with league umpiring evaluators.

If the Dodgers had protested the game, there is a chance the protest would have been upheld and the game replayed. The Dodgers did not protest the game.

Mattingly, who was managing after Joe Torre and bench coach Bob Schaefer were ejected, made a second trip to the mound in the ninth inning with one out and the bases loaded. The Dodgers had a one-run lead.

Broxton left the game after Giants manager Bruce Bochy alerted plate umpire Adrian Johnson of the violation. Left-hander George Sherrill replaced Broxton and allowed a two-run double to Andres Torres to give the Giants the lead in a game they won, 7-5.

BrianC14
07-22-2010, 02:31 AM
ESPN.com news services

Umpires in Tuesday's Dodgers-Giants game erred in forcing Jonathan Broxton from the game, a major league official told ESPN's Tim Kurkjian.

The official said the rule that requires a pitcher to leave the game after two mound visits should have been superseded by an adendum to the rule. Rule 8.06 says if two mound visits occur while the same batter is up, the umpires must eject the manager and the pitcher must face the batter. After the batter, the pitcher should be removed.

Rule 8.06(b) states: "A second trip to the same pitcher in the same inning will cause this pitcher's automatic removal from the game."

However, Rule 8.06 Comment says: "In a case where a manager has made his first trip to the mound and then returns the second time to the mound in the same inning with the same pitcher in the game and the same batter at bat, after being warned by the umpire that he cannot return to the mound, the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he is retired or gets on base. After the batter is retired, or becomes a baserunner, then this pitcher must be removed from the game."

The mistake was discovered after the game in a rehash with league umpiring evaluators.

If the Dodgers had protested the game, there is a chance the protest would have been upheld and the game replayed. The Dodgers did not protest the game.

Mattingly, who was managing after Joe Torre and bench coach Bob Schaefer were ejected, made a second trip to the mound in the ninth inning with one out and the bases loaded. The Dodgers had a one-run lead.

Broxton left the game after Giants manager Bruce Bochy alerted plate umpire Adrian Johnson of the violation. Left-hander George Sherrill replaced Broxton and allowed a two-run double to Andres Torres to give the Giants the lead in a game they won, 7-5.


Well there you go. They did hose it, didn't they?

I'm a bit confused now about the timing of the events on this... the above article says Bochy alerted Johnson of the violation, but earlier articles have Johnson immediately telling Mattingly, "No, no, you can't do that..." If that is truly what happened, then there's no way that Bochy could have alerted Johnson to the violation prior to him (Johnson) telling Mattingly this.

I think it would be interesting to have a protest upheld, and have them pick things up where they left off... with the ejections still in full force and effect, of course. :)

bnumpire
07-22-2010, 04:48 AM
If Adrian Johnson did yell, "no, no, no, you can't. . . " wouldn't that constitute a warning to Mattingly to not to make a second trip? If so, then Mattingly should have been ejected.

BrianC14
07-22-2010, 05:18 AM
If Adrian Johnson did yell, "no, no, no, you can't. . . " wouldn't that constitute a warning to Mattingly to not to make a second trip? If so, then Mattingly should have been ejected.

Umpire's discretion on that, though....

johnnyg08
07-23-2010, 05:18 PM
If Adrian Johnson did yell, "no, no, no, you can't. . . " wouldn't that constitute a warning to Mattingly to not to make a second trip? If so, then Mattingly should have been ejected.

I think we have to understand that the "no, no, no" occurred at close to the exact same time that Mattingly stepped back on the mound to answer Loney's question.

As somebody else may have posted here or on the "other" forum is the spirit of the warning rule is to stop a defiant manager from leaving the dugout, walking out toward the mound, where HPU has ample time to verbally warn the manager from crossing the foul line for a 2nd trip. Blatant defiance would result in an ejection...that is the spirit of the rule.

IMO, the only part they got wrong was removing Broxton before facing the next batter.

They were correct in not ejecting Mattingly. They were correct in interpreting that as a second trip, just removed F1 at the wrong time.

They should've signaled to the bullpen to get Sherrill to warm up, knowing that he's coming out of the game after this batter, Broxton is probably going to throw over to 1B a few times, take all the time he legally can to give Sherrill time to get loose, then leave the game after the next hitter is retired.