|
Post by gj on Nov 28, 2012 16:36:25 GMT 10
Tried googling a reason for the rule - even found a link back to this site but ala no answer. What I did find was a heap of rules (including NCAA) that substitute the 'removal from the game' with 'removal from pitching'
|
|
|
Post by lovethegame on Nov 28, 2012 18:48:12 GMT 10
I got it, lets change the rules of baseball so it is a timed game instead of nine innings to make it easier. Oh already done that. Okay, lets change the rules of baseball so we can bat 12 people so nobody feels left out. Oh already done that. The game is what it is and lets stop dumbing it down. Let your pitcher work out of the trouble or change him/her on the first visit if you also want them to play in the field. Lets be real, a manager's visit is only to give the pitcher a breather, tell a joke and relax his or her mind.
|
|
|
Post by shoeless on Nov 28, 2012 19:45:00 GMT 10
Look I think it's a stupid rule for this type of league, but it has been a rule of baseball for a long time, as Nate stated the manager has to be more careful and must understand the rules of the game. Which is fine for Div 1 & 2, 1st-3rds as most of the mangers at those levels would have a fair grasp of the rules of baseball, but image the manager of a clubs 5th's makes this two visits every 2nd week because one of his pitchers is the guy that goes to 2nd base when he is relived of his pitching duties after 2 visits in an inning. Now fast forward to this 5th's team GF day and now that the umpire is an actual accredited umpire he is well aware that 2 visits in an inning means removal from a game. Move forward to the last inning of the game, score tied, here comes Joe Blogs from 1st base for his second visit in an inning and no-one on the bench. Umpire enforces the rule, team now plays with 8, offensive team score one to go ahead and now with 2 outs runners on second and third Joe Blogs is up with the now blank spot behind him, low and behold Joe gets walked, oh well Joe good season but, game over!!!! I think horses for courses is something that needs to be looked at. For God sake half the managers I've played under didn't even know how to explain the infield fly rule!!!!
I think something like what gj found "removal from pitching" is a better outcome.
And this is just one rule - baseball has soooooo many we could do this forever. I love talking about baseball...
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Nov 28, 2012 19:55:50 GMT 10
Shoeless..I loved your story and I hate to spoil the drama, but there are several flaws. 1. Why wouldn't the umpire go over the rule at the plate meeting, given its importance and the probability that the manager at that level may not be familiar with it? 2. Why wouldn't the umpire on seeing the manager advancing, (assuming it was not spoken of at the plate) remind the manager that this visit will remove the pitcher from the game? 3. Why wouldn't a club that has finals teams ensure that their managers knew the visit to the mound rule. 4. Playing conditions for finals usually address any unfamiliar or new aspects of the game.
|
|
|
Post by MF on Nov 28, 2012 20:06:12 GMT 10
Eck, your arguments are irrelevant. The bottom line is that it's a silly rule for anything but 1sts and 2nds. "Removal from pitching" is a perfectly reasonable variation to use in lower leagues. Time wasting is a red herring - there are several other rules in that can be applied to control time wasting.
|
|
|
Post by shoeless on Nov 28, 2012 20:26:19 GMT 10
Eck - I've been to a fair few plate meeting in my time - and I would say roughly 98% of them had nothing to do with specific rules, ground rules yes, specific rules rarely. The one that I do remember was when the Green Shirt Umpire rule was introducted. Never the double whammy player and manager, never the no metal cleats at the stadium, never the chewing tobacco rule, never the heat out rule.
But oh well the rules not going to change so suck it up and make sure everyone who volunteers to help your club in a coaching capacity reads the rule book, cos it's exciting!!!!!!!!!!
I was all excited yesterday to be back on the forum, but it seems the same crap is still happening - round and round in circles nothing changes!!!!!!! It's like listening to Eddie McGuire - some great points and very passionate, but it always ends up at the same spot - Collingwood for Eddie and nowhere for Baseball.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 20:36:20 GMT 10
It's great to have you back with us, shoeless. We'll keep battling.
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Nov 28, 2012 21:04:26 GMT 10
Sorry to disappoint, Shoeless..maybe this will be a circle breaker. Anyone lost a pitcher this season? You're no doubt correct re your plate meetings, but it is precisely because this is a "new" rule this season that it would be mentioned at the plate..the other rules you cite are well established, but would have been canvassed extensively in the season/s they were introduced.
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Nov 28, 2012 21:08:37 GMT 10
P.S. I can't see anywhere that I was arguing FOR the rule..just pointing out that it need not be the disaster that is being predicted. Given that aueagle anticipates the rule may well remain, it is important that managers/players don't fall foul of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 21:40:59 GMT 10
A spirited discussion that still has a deal more mileage in it.
I would argue that enforcement of this particular rule in amateur baseball is a classic SNUP (Serves No Useful Purpose).
It is simply not worth bothering about. Keep the two visits provision and adapt the wording so that a pitcher has to leave the mound but can go to a defensive position.
Potential for time-wasting appears to be the reason for application of the rule (which won’t apply in any case for a nine innings game, though it might for a midweeker or timed game).
What other reason would there be for enforcing this rule?
Yet time-wasting is already covered under BV Playing Conditions (and Rules of Baseball) as below:
17) Time Wasting a) Umpires are to take necessary actions to prevent wasting of time and any acts of deliberate time wasting, as defined in Rule of Baseball 4.15. The umpire may choose to “Call” a game in extreme cases and “Forfeit” the offending team. All incidents shall be recorded on the Match Report Card for consideration of action by the Summer League Committee.
Covered, surely. It’s a done deal without having this extra layer of enforcement. In fact, just one visit (or even no visits) could have the potential to constitute “deliberate time-wasting”.
Having said that, people are quite right in arguing that managers and club administrators should make a point of understanding the rules in their entirety.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Nov 29, 2012 10:08:27 GMT 10
An update on a couple of points I've made previously...
I received some clarification from the BV Umpires Director... to correct a previous point I'd made, it appears the catalyst for removing the exclusion to Rule 8.06 was a direct request from the Umpires Director. There appears no suggestion the ABF was involved.
Further, the Umpires Director has strongly suggested regardless of the views of the SLC, his recommendation is to retain Rule 8.06 in full... as I noted yesterday, the rule is unlikely to change, so please ensure your coaches understand the rule in full.
Regarding the motivation for the change, in summary, the change was motivated by a desire to bring the Vic Summer League into line with other leagues around Australia, with National Championships, and even with other leagues here in Victoria, that all apply this rule in full, and for umpires to have a more effective means of preventing time wasting. The intent of the rule is to prevent time wasting by managers. As expressed by our Umpires Director, there are time wasting rules (that do permit umpires to eject where they believe time wasting is occuring), however these rules are dependant on an individual umpire's judgement and can lead to issues of consistency (or lack of) and increased tension on-field between umpires and manager's. The umpires believe it will be more effective by applying the ACTUAL RULE OF BASEBALL as its written.
Regarding the wording of "A professional league shall adopt...", it was confirmed this is basis point for rules to then be adapted and varied for local conditions and requirements... specific use of this term prevents professional leagues from varying and omitting... in the absence of a specific varience or omission, the 'professional league' rule should be applied to any league as written.
I understand many of you have concerns about the rule, particularly how it may impact the juniors and grades below the 1st's... I can only advise you ensure your coaches fully understand this rule and manage accordingly. Over time, this rule will become the norm and any problems of coaches not understanding should pass.
|
|
|
Post by larry42 on Nov 29, 2012 10:27:28 GMT 10
Further, the Umpires Director has strongly suggested regardless of the views of the SLC, his recommendation is to retain Rule 8.06 in full... as I noted yesterday, the rule is unlikely to change, so please ensure your coaches understand the rule in full. . WTF! By memory i think this rule affected Port Melb last week v Berwick with two visits in an inning and removal of players (import) Certainly gets you thinking about how you manage a tough inning and becomes a lot more bench coaching if required.
|
|
|
Post by gj on Nov 29, 2012 10:57:28 GMT 10
Nate, Your first post on this you wrote "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)." Does your last message imply this may not now be the case and the rule will be retained? If it is only a time wasting aspect the umpires are concerned with surely there are other ways to control this.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Nov 29, 2012 12:07:25 GMT 10
gj, my apologies if you interpreted from my original post on this thread that it was likely the rule would be changed... as I wrote, a well-presented submission was put to the SLC and was given consideration at a meeting earlier this week.
In that orginal post, I also noted an arguement for the retention of the rule as written.
Regardless, since the submission was given consideration and through correspondance with the Umpire's Director, I've taken the view it appears unlikely this rule will be removed or amended now or in the future. As such, I'm advising those concerned over this issue to focus on ensuring all coaches are aware of the rule and comprehend it in full.
This is only my view, not that of the SLC or the Umpire's Director, and is subject to change.
Regarding the issue of time wasting, the point I see the umpires making is the time wasting provisions are judgement-based and have the potential to lead to conflict... the new approach applies the rule of baseball, as written, and establishes a black-and-white means of controlling a manger using visits as a means of wasting time.
And, again from the point I believe the umpires are making, its not only about wasting time, but also, in part, about creating uniformity of rules with other competitions in Australia to eliminate some of the confusion among coaches and umpires who are currently faced with different rules in different competitions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2012 12:41:54 GMT 10
The pros and cons of the rule have been explored extensively and it may well be, as Nathan says, that no change is made to application of the rule.
However, if this is going to be about uniformity and consistency, then I'd suggest there is a bit of work to be done with the winter leagues, including the bigger ones mentioned below.
In the GBA Playing Conditions I can see no mention of the two mound visits. That may suggest that the rule is either not known about or is simply ignored. Alternatively, because nothing appears to be written, then by default the Rules of Baseball could and would be applied if someone - say the opposition Manager - picked up on the situation and brought it to the umpires' attention.
Unless I have missed something, the same situation applies in the DBA, where there appears to be no mention in the Playing Conditions, although there is the standard general reference to ABF rules and the umbrella Rules of Baseball.
In the MWBL - the flagship winter league and by far the biggest in Australian baseball - there seems to be a contradiction. If the Manager makes two visits in an innings, then the player is to be "removed from the mound" (IE can seemingly stay in the game).
Yet, if the umpire warns him not to make a second visit to the same pitcher when the same batter is at the plate (and he does make the visit), then the pitcher has to be "removed from the game", clearly because it is deemed (correctly) as time-wasting.
So we have an apparent contradiction in that the Rules of Baseball AND the local playing conditions relating to time-wasting are being applied, but with a different outcome.
This seems to not be "black and white" at all. Yet.
Whether or not the rule is revoked or re-worded, there would seem to be an opportunity to standardise the rule and make it amply clear across all of the affiliate leagues so that there IS no ambiguity or confusion either at local level or at Winter Championships, for which the rule reads as follows:
f) Visits to the mound i. A manager or coach may have one free visit in one inning to visit with the pitcher, but the second time out, the player must be removed as a pitcher. ii. A manager or coach may come out three times in one game to visit with the pitcher, but the fourth and subsequent time out, the pitcher must be removed from the mound. iii. A manager or coach may confer with any other player(s), including the catcher, during the visit with the pitcher. A manager or coach who is granted a time out to talk to any defensive player will be charged with a visit to the mound.
Uniformity? Hmm....
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Nov 29, 2012 13:01:39 GMT 10
kc, in the case where no playing conditions make no mention of variations or omission of specific rules, the official rule of baseball applies. Therefore, if no variation or omission to Rule 8.06 is noted, Rule 8.06 must apply in full in the competitions you noted.
In reading the MWBL playing conditions, I'd suggest the contradiction is in the manner the MWBL has documented the rule... its noted the rule is 'as per ABF Baseball Rules - Rule 8.06," yet goes on to make a variation to the wording of the rule... considering the key difference this wording creates (as has been argued on this thread ad nauseum), this variation should be properly noted.
Individual competitions have the ability to vary and omit rules as they deem necessary... Considering the Summer League's default prior to this season was to completely omit Rule 8.06, it could be argued the change has resulted in greater consistency across competitions than in the past, even with the rewording in the MWBL.
|
|
|
Post by shoeless on Nov 29, 2012 15:31:52 GMT 10
Will the rule go this far -
Los Angles Dodgers coach Don Mattingly was caught breaking a dumb baseball rule about multiple visits to the mound in the same inning. When after taking a three or four step back towards the dugout he turned around to deliver one last message. Boom, second visit. Pitcher gets pulled. Dodgers lose the game.
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Nov 29, 2012 15:46:55 GMT 10
Larry..if Pt Melb vBerwick lost a pitcher , given that it must have been some form of Division 2, leads to the possible conclusions (a) the manager chose the removal of the pitcher from the game, rather than complete the innings or (b) the manager was ignorant of the rule..which would lead to (c) where has the manager been all season?
|
|
|
Post by shoeless on Nov 29, 2012 16:02:18 GMT 10
Just to make my point on stupid rules in Baseball have a crack at this one - What is the possible outcomes -
A runner is on first base when the batter hits a shot toward left-center. Certain that the ball will go for extra bases, the runner runs full tilt and is around second base when the center fielder makes a great diving catch. In his haste to return to first, the runner misses second base. Meanwhile, the outfielder's return throw goes past the first baseman and into the dugout as the runner regains first base. Where does the runner end up and what play can the defense make???
|
|
|
Post by shoeless on Nov 29, 2012 16:19:22 GMT 10
Here's the answer -
On the throw into the dugout, the runner is entitled to third base. However, once the ball is dead, he cannot return to touch a missed base after advancing to and touching a base beyond the missed base. Therefore, an appeal would be valid notwithstanding the runner touching second on his way to third as a result of the awarded bases. The defense can appeal the missed second base as soon as the ball is put back in play. Should they fail to do so, the runner remains at third. (7.02, 7.10a-b-Approved Ruling, 7.05g)
I understand that most players would touch second on the way to third as a result of the award, but as happened in the game I was involved in the runner returning to first slide into first and broke his ankle, the replacement runner went straight to third not touching second. The defensive team appealed to second, well within their rights, and after a lentghy and some what heated discussion the runner was correctly given out. If this happens make sure your replacement starts at first and goes through second on the way to third touching all the bases.....
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Dec 4, 2012 13:59:36 GMT 10
Saw an interesting moment in last Sunday morning U/18 game. Manager visits the pitcher to offer words of advice, two batters later the catcher calls time under instruction from the said Manager and relays whatever message was sent. IMO this constituted the second visit. Being a junior game and the umpy probably not aware of the ruling just let it pass. Would have been really interested if it was a real umpy and how he would have handled it.
|
|