This folder is reserved for topics related to game preliminaries and the start/end of games, Official Baseball Rules 3.00; 4.00; and 5.00, including when a run scores, regulation games, suspended games, substitutions, etc.

Post away!

I think this is the right category...and I thought of something today that I'm not quite sure of the answer to.

If a runner is picked off or caught stealing to end an inning, the batter at the time leads off the next inning. However, what if the batter was a pinch-hitter? Does the pinch-hitter (or another substitute, such as a new pitcher) have to stay in the game? I'm guessing this is the case. But it would be odd if you pinch-hit for the pitcher, and the runner is picked off to end the inning, and a new pitcher has to come in and (unless a double switch is made) has to lead off the next inning.

Joe,

Your post is a bit confusing, mainly because you brought the pitcher into the mix here while referring to a "pinch-hitter." I hope my explanation addresses your question, though.

When the inning ends as a result of a runner being retired like in your situation, and the batter has not completed his at-bat, that batter is the one to come back up the next time that team is on offense.

If John was pinch-hitting for Bob, then John would come back up to the plate with a new count the next time his team goes back on offense. Now, say that team doesn't want John to bat and they instead put Rick up. That's fine. However, John is considered replaced, with Rick being his substitute. John is therefore done and cannot reenter the game in any capacity, even though he never did a thing.

If you'd like some clarification as far as what to do if pitchers are replaced in such situations, feel free to elaborate further, for I wasn't sure exactly of what you needed answer-wise.

My question is actually more about who takes the field on defense after the inning ends on the pickoff...

With 2 outs and a runner on first in the bottom of the 8th, John pinch-hits for Bob, the shortstop. The runner is picked off to end the inning, so John doesn't complete the at-bat and would lead off next inning. But if the at-bat isn't completed, does this mean Bob technically isn't replaced yet and can play shortstop in the top of the 9th? Or is Bob out of the game once the pinch-hitter is announced in the 8th and therefore John (or someone else) would have to play shortstop in the top of the 9th?

Using the same scenario but instead of shortstop Bob's a pitcher (and assuming it isn't a really long game and John isn't a pitcher being used to pinch-hit because no one's left on the bench), if Bob isn't allowed to stay in and pitch the 9th, then someone else has to come in. And unless the manager then makes a double-switch, that new pitcher would bat in Bob's position in the order and have to lead off the bottom of the 9th (and probably get pinch-hit for).

Absent an official PA announcement, John is in the game the instant the plate umpire is told of the substitution, since he carries the official lineup card. Therefore, when his team takes the field, John must go to his position on defense. Of course, a substitute can be put on the field in his place, meaning John is out of the game.

That is correct. John pinch hits for Bob, the pitcher. If a runner is put out on the bases, then John's at-bat is over. Bob was replaced as the pitcher by John. However, John & Bob's manager isn't going to put John on the mound to pitch, so he puts someone else there. There are several legal ways he can move fielders around if necessary.

[ June 22, 2003, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: The Umpire ]

In a recent Jays game a ground ball was hit to Carlos Delgado and it went inside his shirt. Carlos struggled to get the ball out, but with the batter bearing down on first base, Delgado ran to the bag and stepped on it while clutching the ball through his shirt. The first base umpire moved to where he could see that Carlos had "possession" of the ball and called the runner out.

But I'm wondering if holding a ball that's underneath your shirt is really "possession." I mean, after the play was dead, it took him a few seconds to fish the ball out. Couldn't the opposing manager complain? I mean, the ball wasn't actually in his hand, nor was it in his glove.

Canmark,

Check back w/ me next week on this one. I'll have more to say at that time.

In tonight's Jays game there was a minor kerfuffle when the pitching coach went to talk to the pitcher on the mound. Supposedly he left the mound, then turned back to say a few more words (I didn't actually see this). The opposing manager made some argument about this being "two trips to the mound." So my question is: at what point does the second visit become a visit? After the coach leaves the mound? Leaves the field? Can you have a second visit without the pitcher having thrown a pitch?

Canmark,

A trip begins when the manager or coach crosses the foul line on his way to the mound and ends when he walks off the mound. This means that once he has left the mound, he cannot go back without being charged a trip. However, we use a bit of common sense and try to stop this from even happening. We won't hold it against a manager who has left the mound but shouts some additional words back to the pitcher. Of course, we'll ensure he's not trying to manipulate the rules in such a situation.

The defense is allowed one trip per inning. The second trip in the same inning results in the pitcher being removed from the game. Moreover, a manager or coach may not make a second trip to the same pitcher while the same batter is at bat, or he is subject to being ejected.

With respect to your last question about a second visit before a pitch is thrown, I believe my above paragraph answers this, but to further elaborate, no, this would not be possible, since it would mean the same batter is at bat.

Example: Zito is pitching when his manager comes out to talk to him: TRIP #1 Two pitches later, with the count 2-0, his manager again wants to make a trip. However, he is prohibited from doing so. If he disregards the umpire's warning on this, he will be ejected once he crosses the foul line and Zito must leave the game after he finishes the current batter.

But what if the manager doesn't wish to make a second trip during the same batter because he knows he's prohibited, but instead, he just asks for "time" from the dugout to have his pitcher changed? No can do. The pitcher must finish his current batter. Then he can be replaced.

[ July 08, 2003, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: The Umpire ]

Hi Ump,

Did you have a response for Canmark's other question about the baseball in the shirt being possession or not? I was a little confused on that one myself.

Bill,

I sort of have an answer.

The weekend following that particular play, a committee that, among other things, is the decisionmaking body for official MLB interpretations met to cover many things. This play was scheduled to be on the agenda. However, due to circumstances beyond its control, the committee meeting was postponed.

Regardless, the interpretation at this point in time is that such a play is not ruled a catch and an out, and that the umpires would subsequently place runners where we would have judged them to have advanced absent the ball in shirt "catch."

I hope this doesn't confuse you, but right now, the Powers that Be are going with this interpretation so far. We'll have to see what transpires further when the committee meets later this month or early next month.

As far as my personal opinion on this, I would not rule it a catch and an out. Based on the definition of a catch as defined by rule 2.00, it is not a catch if a fielder uses part of his uniform to assist in making said catch.

The big question comes on just to what that phrase refers. It is widely believed that that wording is more related to detached gear, when a fielder cannot use his mitt or cap detached from its proper place to make a catch. However, detached gear generally involves some intentional act of cheating, so to speak. Was the Jays' infielder trying to intentionally do something wrong? I seriously doubt it. So, if the idea of detached gear doesn't really come into play, how to rule?

This is what is being discussed by those of us involved in arriving at an official interpretation.

And you thought all we did was call balls and strike, eh?

Canmark and Bill, et. al.:

Go to the General Announcements & News Folder for information on the above ball-in-shirt play.

Thanks for the update Ump. Little did I realize that that play would be cause for an official review and ruling. I just knew when I saw it that I was going to Ask the Ump

[ August 21, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: canmark ]

Definitely the most important, most critical section of this board!

Better than all those kiddies yelling at each other in the political section, or those people in the soccer section who really believe that sport is worthy to watch. eek!

*raises hand to thwack umpire, but avoids doing so*

In light of the fact I might get a six game suspension, even though it'd likely be reduced to four games and a $25,000 fine, I think I'll just throw my hat and kick some dirt in the umpire's general direction. :mad:

[quote]DestinyRules:
[QUOTE]
I think I'll just throw my hat and kick some dirt in the umpire's general direction. :mad: [/quote]Now, certainly you could be more creative than THAT! That isn't very original, you know. wink

I can think of other penalties to apply, but I won't go there.

(Did I just say that? )

[quote]The Umpire:
[quote]DestinyRules:
[QUOTE]
I think I'll just throw my hat and kick some dirt in the umpire's general direction. :mad: [/quote]Now, certainly you could be more creative than THAT! That isn't very original, you know. wink
[/quote]Like flipping the ump the bird? Is THAT covered in the rulebook? (I would hope so)

Ump,
I'd like to hear your interpretation of 4.16, and why you think it exists in the rule book, particularly since I don't see how an umpire can actually enforce it during the course of a game.

I was at the rain out fiasco and the grounds crew was very lax in covering the field.

Does major league baseball ever uphold protests? They are so spineless sometimes it is disgusting.

Thanks

Josh

Josh,

It's there for a reason, just like all the others. Of course, some rules that are still present are rather archaic or have lost what I call their "realisticness." (Yes, I know it's not a word.)

This rule was put in because of the days long ago when home teams would mess around with the field to avoid playing or resuming games for one reason or another. Teams would also try to manipulate situations by intentionally slowing down the process of making the field better, etc.
A forfeit isn't going to be granted at the major league level unless it's approved by the Commissioner's Office, trust me. A crew chief will rarely unilaterally decree a forfeit. He will almost always be in communication with the MLB office before such an on-the-spot decision might be made. It's all done because of $$$$$$.

Yep and since MLB owns the Nationals, why would they declare a forfeit, which would cost themselves money. Talk about a conflict of interest!

Josh