Visits to the mound

[Deleted]

There has been some discussion and concern expressed about a particular rule that from this season has been applied to Summer League across all divisions – senior and junior.

According to the rule, two visits to the mound in an innings require that the pitcher be replaced. That is straightforward enough. But unless I have misunderstood something here, the rule requires that he or she has to come out of the game completely and is not allowed to go into a defensive position.

Now that might be all very well in tournament play or at professional level. What happens, though, if a team only has nine players? What if the pitcher happens to be the side’s regular third baseman, say, who was on the mound only because of injury to a regular pitcher or because of lack of roster depth or the demands of midweek games?

What about in juniors? In applying the rule to the letter, are we not denying kids the opportunity of playing and learning multiple positions?

It seems harsh that the player cannot go into a defensive position after the Manager’s second visit, especially since we’re talking here about amateur baseball in which players pay for the privilege of being there.

Is this reading of the rule correct, or have I missed something?

[aueagle30]

kc, your reading of the rule is correct... the official rules of baseball state the pitcher must be removed from the game on the second visit in an inning.

A logical and coherent submission has been put to the SLC to review this rule to withdraw the requirement to remove the pitcher from the game. The SLC will give this consideration at its next meeting, but I would think it's unlikely there would be a change mid-season (my experience has been rule changes are implemented between seasons).

Not in my role with the SLC, and without pre-determining my position on the issue, but let me play devil's advocate...

The pitcher must only be removed from the game if it's the second visit for the inning. If the pitcher is also required as a defensive player following his/her assignment, coaches can take extra caution in managing their visits to the pitcher.

If the coach makes the pitching change on the first trip, the pitcher can go into the field... in essence, there's no prevention to kids playing multiple positions or even playing time... the rule puts the responsibility on the coach to be efficient in their visits and management of players, reducing the chance of purposeful time wasting or general loss of game time.

Again, I'm yet to form a view, but wanted to present the other perspective being considered, by me at least (not speaking for anyone else).

[Deleted]

Your comment on the Manager's responsibility in this regard is well made.

In the end it is up to him to handle the situation correctly. If he knows the rule and he messes up, then the fault of course lies with him.

I'd be interested to know, though, whether the rule is fully understood by managers, umpires and players across the board.

I don't recall if the GBA used the rule in winter, but I believe that Vic Winter League DID allow the player to go into a defensive position after the two visits.

Have there been instances this summer of it not being applied when it should have been? Have there been instances of oversight, when a Manager has simply forgotten and his team has been adversely affected in having to play with eight?

Have there been instances - especially where there is no official umpire - where teams might either not know the rule or simply agree to not have it enforced?

I don't expect you to have the answers, aueagle30 (although as a sagacious bloke you just might ;D). My concern is that the rule may not currently be fully understood (even though it is in the Rules of Baseball) and it may not be getting consistently applied across the BV competitions and the winter leagues.

[Marshy]

KC, at nearly every plate meeting I have had this season, the rule has been covered, or at least mentioned to ensure all understand it. Kind of like a new ground rule.

As a result, it hasn't needed to be enforced.

[wako]

So then, when changing pitchers, a manager can simply yell the change out to the players, inform the umpire and scorers, and this doesn't constitute a mound visit, or, wait until the new pitcher is on the mound before visiting the mound? Would this be the way to do it?

[Deleted]

And that's fine, marshy. If umpires are helping provide clarity and certainty then there should be no issue with application (or non-application) of the rule.

But where there are no official umpires? What about in a lower grade, where managers and players may not be as conversant with rules?

When one league chooses to apply the rule to the letter and another does not?

[The Puma]

I haven't had it mentioned once at a plate meeting but I thought it was always the rule?

[Deleted]

Consistent enforcement of the rule is an issue, but let's not lose sight of the original post.

Should we be applying this particular rule? Is it fair? Is it sensible for amateur baseball? Do we need it? Why was it introduced this season?

As Nathan points out, it is unlikely that it (or any other rule) would or should be changed part-way into a season.

But if there are legitimate concerns about the rule itself (such as the ones I mentioned) then we should throw them out there with a view to maybe getting change for future seasons.

The Summer League Committee seems to already be aware of those concerns.

[Marshy]

Given I play timed games, I am in favor of it.

Not sure why it's required for 9 innings games.

Can I seek clarification as to where any issues with the rule may lie. Is it the fact that it exists? Is it the fact that you have to remove the player from the game on the second visit? Is it the fact that it's ONLY two visits?

[stuartcapel]

We had an interesting case earlier this season when a manager made a visit to the mound to talk to his tiring pitcher. Three balls into the back net later, the manager went to remove the clearly struggling young lady and the umpire immediately threatened to eject the manager from the game if he made the second visit during the same hitter.

Now, to the letter of the law, such an ejection is in the rules, however I doubt the MLB rule book was written with women's Division Three in mind.

[oldmanriver]

Heaven help the team that only has seven players and the Manager accidently walks to the mound for a second time. Whoops, only six players left. Bars open. I think that this rule would probably be only enforced where official umpires act and are pedantic about rules. In the lower grades, you would have to be a very serious nufty to actually remember and then enforce the rule. What are we coming to?

[Deleted]

Marshy, in his own inimitable way, OMR has hit the nail on the head.

It is amateur club baseball we are talking about.

Everyone understands and probably accepts that two visits require you to change pitchers. That's fine. But to not allow the player to go to a defensive position (as was the case until this season) is seriously questionable.

Plenty of teams only have the bare nine players. In lower grades teams sometimes play with eight or seven.

Why force the player to come out of the game?

[eckersley43]

Without getting into the pros and cons of the rule, it is not applied to "trap" unsuspecting managers.
!. A first visit is clearly communicated to managers by the umpire.
2.The rule is mentioned at plate meetings.
The most controversial aspect is the removal of a junior pitcher when he/she reaches the count.The manager is forced to visit the mound without the option of the pitcher finishing the innings, and if there was a prior visit the pitcher would be removed from the game. The manager cannot reasonably anticipate what will transpire after a first visit in terms of finishing the innings in relation to the pitch count. And Wako, pitchers can't be removed from the mound, by calling out from the dugout etc, because with a new pitcher being introduced it's all about time consumed. It could be argued that removal on a pitch count is an "enforced" visit and shouldn't be within the application of the rule, but currently no such exception is given in the playing conditions.

[eckersley43]

KC whilst I agree with your points, it is not correct that the pitcher is "forced out of the game" per se. The options are no second visit in an innings or removal on a first visit.

[aueagle30]

Until this season, BV specifically ignored this rule... until the season, coaches could have unlimited visits to the mound without making a change.

Div 1 umpires have been very good at understanding and explaining the new rules.

Wako, pitching changes yelled from the dugout still constitute a visit... not sure exactly how it's written, but pitching changes must be made through the mound, requiring a visit.

OMR, I'm not sure we want umpires deciding which rules to follow and which to not... it might be pedantic to follow them all, but we'd end up in a mess if they didn't, regardless of what level.

[aueagle30]

Until this season, BV specifically ignored this rule... until the season, coaches could have unlimited visits to the mound without making a change.

Div 1 umpires have been very good at understanding and explaining the new rules.

Wako, pitching changes yelled from the dugout still constitute a visit... not sure exactly how it's written, but pitching changes must be made through the mound, requiring a visit.

OMR, I'm not sure we want umpires deciding which rules to follow and which to not... it might be pedantic to follow them all, but we'd end up in a mess if they didn't, regardless of what level.

[deebs2]

1st time message, long time reader.
What kc is trying to find out from you guys is, after the 2nd visit why should the pitcher have to come out of the game completely ? We have 3 pitchers that are also position players, and I am sure a lot of clubs are in the same boat. So why would you bring in a rule like this in club ball ? Agree or Disagree

[wako]

BV Playing Condition references Official Australian Baseball Rule 8.06, which is:

(from www.baseball.com.au/site/baseball/abf/downloads/rsources/ABF%20Official%20Australian%20Rules%206th%20Edition%202010_FINALS.pdf, relevant part bolded):

8.06 Defensive Visits
A professional league shall adopt the following Rule pertaining to the visit of the manager or
coach to the pitcher:
(a) This rule limits the number of trips a manager or coach may make to any one pitcher
in any one inning.
(b) A second trip to the same pitcher in the same inning will cause this pitcher's automatic
removal from the game.
(c) The manager or coach is prohibited from making a second visit to the mound while the
same batter is at bat; but
(d) if a pinch hitter is substituted for this batter, the manager or coach may make a
second visit to the mound, but must remove the pitcher.
A manager or coach is considered to have concluded a visit to the mound when having
left the 18 foot circle surrounding the pitcher's rubber.
If the manager or coach goes to the catcher or infielder and that player then goes to the
mound, or the pitcher goes to that player at that player’s position before there is an
intervening play (a pitch or other play), that will be the same as the manager or coach going to
the mound.
Any attempt to evade or circumvent this Rule by the manager or coach going to the catcher
or an infielder and then that player going to the mound to confer with the pitcher shall
constitute a trip to the mound.
If the coach goes to the mound and removes a pitcher and then the manager goes to the
mound to talk with the new pitcher, that will constitute one trip to that new pitcher that
inning.
In a case where a manager has made a 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 not to return to the mound, the manager
shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until the
batter is retired or gets on base. After the batter is retired, or becomes a base runner, then
this pitcher must be removed from the game. The manager should be notified that the
pitcher will be removed from the game after pitching to one hitter so a substitute pitcher
can be warmed up.
The substitute pitcher will be allowed eight preparatory pitches or more if, in the umpire's
judgment, circumstances justify.

No other rule I could find dealing with substitutions of pitchers or substitutions generally, or the manager, says that the manager cannot yell a change from the dugout, or foul territory, etc. Since a mound visit is concluded when the manager (or fielder acting for the manager) leaves the 18 foot circle, it would seem to be implicit that a mound visit must commence when the 18 foot circle is entered by the manager (or fielder acting for the manager). If nobody so enters the 18 foot circle, I don't see how it can be a mound visit under the rules.

Here's the rule dealing with substitutes:

3.03 Player Substitute
A player, or players, may be substituted during a game at any time the ball is dead.
A substitute player shall bat in the replaced player's position in the team's batting order.
A player once removed from a game shall not re-enter that game.
If a player who has been substituted for attempts to re enter or re enters the game in any
capacity, the umpire in chief shall direct the player’s manager to remove such player
immediately upon noticing the player’s presence or upon being informed of the players
improper presence by another umpire or by either manager. If such decision to remove the
substituted for player occurs before play commences with the substituted for player improperly
in the game, then the substitute player may enter the game. If such direction to remove the
substituted for player occurs after a play has commenced with the substituted for player in the
game, then the substitute player shall be deemed to have been removed from the game, (in
addition to the substituted for player) and shall not enter the game. Any play that occurs while
a players appears in a game after having been substituted for shall count. If, in the umpire’s
opinion, the player re entered the game knowing that he had been removed, the umpire may
eject the manager.

If a substitute enters the game in place of a player-manager, the manager may thereafter go
to the coaching lines.
When two or more substitute players of the defensive team enter the game at the same
time, the manager shall, immediately before they take their positions as fielders, designate to
the umpire-in-chief such players' positions in the team's batting order and the umpire-inchief shall so notify the official scorer. If this information is not immediately given to the
umpire-in-chief, the umpire-in-chief shall have authority to designate substitutes' places in
the batting order.
A pitcher may change to another position only once during the same inning, eg, the pitcher
will not be allowed to assume a position other than a pitcher more than once in the same
inning.
Any player, other than a pitcher, substituted for an injured player shall be allowed five warm
up throws. (See Rule 8.03 for pitchers.)

and.... 3.08:

3.08 Substitute in the Game
(a) If no announcement of a substitution is made, the substitute shall be considered as
having entered the game when:
(1) if a pitcher, the correct place on the pitcher's plate is taken;
(2) if a batter, the correct place in the batter's box is taken;
(3) if a fielder, the position usually occupied by the replaced fielder is reached and play
commences; and
(4) if a runner, the place of the replaced runner is taken.
(b) Any play made by, or on, any of the above mentioned unannounced substitutes shall be
legal.

Rules 3.03-3.08 deal variously with substitutes; I won't paste all of them in full, but there's nothing to say that a pitching change must involve anything the rules define as a mound visit, or even be announced.

[eckersley43]

The result of removing the pitcher from the mound is a DELAY in the play. If it isn't a visit, no matter how it was done, then the only other option for delaying the game would be to deem it as time wasting..which would be even worse considering the consequences.

[Deleted]

Welcome aboard deebs2.

There are other issues that arise from the rule (in terms of interpretation and enforcement). But yes, the fundamental question is whether we agree or disagree with a rule that disallows a player from staying in the game as a position player when he departs the mound after the second visit.

I like your work, eckersley, but the the purpose of the thread was simply and precisely to discuss the "pros and cons" of the rule as it is now being applied.

Regardless of the Manager stuffing up or any other consideration, should the pitcher be allowed to stay in the game as a position player or not?

[stockley]

I like the part that says "a professional league will adopt".

As an amateur league, this rule need not apply...

[MF]

The rule might make sense for D1 1sts (and perhaps reserves) and D2 firsts.
For all other grades, "removal from the game" is completely inappropriate.
Removal from the mound i.e. to a defensive position would be reasonable for the lower grades.

[gj]

Stockley is spot on. This is a professional ball rule. OK for tournament play but has no place in club ball.
Nate has indicated that they have a submission in place to get rid of it, the sooner the better.

[jimmyk]

Here's an interesting (theoretical) situation. You have a bare 9 and a junior pitching who towards the start of the inning reaches his pitch count. Manager is forced to make a pitching change and puts himself on the mound. If for whaever reason he needs to make a second change does that then mean he has to take himself out of the game?

[Marshy]

Here's another one.

I am a coach. This weekend I am pitching. I have a 16 y/o guy who's relatively new to catching, behind the dish.

I envisage at times, I will want to have a chat to him about the hitter, or the situation or whatever. Usual pitcher/catcher stuff.

Do these constitute "visits"? I am the manager, I have called time, and the pitcher is being spoken to???

[oldmanriver]

Marshy, all you have to do is when you call time, stand in the middle of the ground and consistently change positions as you ask yourself questions, just make sure you don't answer them. That won't then constitute a visit as it has to be a two way conversation between two people. Just kidding people.

[aueagle30]

jimmyk, the rule involves the second visit to a pitcher in the same inning... When you make the initial change, the number of visits resets.

Marshy, visits between defensive players don't constitute a pitching visit, even if one of the defensive players is the manager.

[scam]

Or worse still Marshy, you're the catcher and you're going out to speak to your young pitcher....

At the game when this rule change was raised for the first occasion we had a little bit of a joke about it. For obvious reasons we don't name our coach as the 'Manager' on the line-up sheet (for those that don't know - the double whammy ejection rule). With our actual club coach playing SS he made a visit to the mound mid-inning in the 3rd from memory and was told by the main umpire that he had just had his one visit. Between innings he questioned the umpire discretely and was told that even though he wasn't listed as the 'Manager', it was known to that umpire that he was a coach and so therefore it constituted a visit. He also got told that the visit may be counted if any of the other fielders also spoke to the pitcher...

I agree with that in some respects, for the actual coach visit anyway, he is a coach so therefore it should be a visit however if the umpire didn't know our players then this wouldn't have been enforced.
Throughout the remainder of the game there was a fair bit of joking about it each inning, particularly with a throw-around (even the one at the start of the inning) with our 17 y/o 3rd baseman... "don't get too close, it might be a visit!"

As far as juniors go, I don't think there would be an umpire out there (including club umpires) who would enforce the rule if the circumstances were that the pitcher reached his pitch count and was forced to be removed from pitching duties.

There has been some comments about the time delay involved with a pitching change which is the reason for "removal from the game" situation. How is it any quicker for the ex-pitcher to be removed from the game as it is for them to go into the field? Surely the new pitcher's 8 warm-up pitches would be enough time for the ex-pitcher to take his new position?

Add to this the new "extended line-up" rule (being expanded into more grades) where a player can come to the bench but remain in the line-up and return to the field at a later stage. I don't think the "removed from the game" rule works in relation to the "extended line-up rule".
As aueagle said, the SLC are aware and will have some options to consider but they will also need to consider that tie-in to another rule.

I understand the purpose of the rule, in timed games if the coach can visit unlimited times to the mound then there is potential for this to be abused however I don't believe there is a need for that player to be "removed from the game". An enforced change of pitcher is enough.

[aueagle30]

Scam, unless the umpires have determined visits by defensive players constitute a 'visit', the umpire in your game was incorrect... This rule applies in the big leagues (and National Championships), and visits by defensive players don't count as official visits... If our league starts to apply it because the defensive player is the coach/manager, this means different rules apply to different players.

Can any umpires on the forum confirm their understanding of this?

[eckersley43]

Any player or or non player "visiting" the pitcher to the extent that the play is delayed may constitute a visit.Pitcher/ catcher has some leeway, but for other fielders the better question is..Why does first base need to confer with the pitcher for several minutes?.or maybe centrefield feels like jogging in for a chat.It's a judgement call, and wouldn't stop quick conversation from fielder/pitcher in natural breaks in the game..e.g. batter out, on deck batter walking to the plate.
Pusuant to KCs point..I don't like the rule, but until it is altered it has to be enforced.