Back to Boards

Ridiculous Take on things


Ridiculous Take on things

So the Cardinals Manager claims that due to the rule that says a pitcher has to face a minimum 3 batters, it's Baseballs fault 2 batters got drilled back to back by his Reliever.

He claims the reliever " Had no Idea where the ball was going when he threw it" REALLY?? that fact didn't manifest itself while he was warming up in the bullpen? The ball wasn't going everywhere when he threw it??

C'mon, that is SO LAME - Maybe it's simply that his RP doesn't belong in the MLB because he has no control? It wasn't maybe an issue the RP had with the Mound?

I also don't get why the Umps put both teams on warning- The Phillies didn't hit anyone, why should they be on warning? So the Cardinals get to hit 2 batters and the Phillies none after Bryce Harper takes one in the face?


https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ml..

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

The warning is to prevent future batters from getting hit. You claim that it's unfair that no Cardinals were hit, implying that you would want a Philly to drill a Cardinal. Seems pretty clear why the warning is in place.

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

They also didnt blame rule for hitting two batters. They said rule prevented pitcher from being taken out AFTER he hit two batters. He was forced to pitch to a third.

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

If you throw at someone intentionally you should be ejected, I have no issue with that

What I was pointing out was the fact that if the Phillies best reliever WAS to enter the game and accidently hit a Cardinal, he would be ejected and Fined and possibly suspended - based on the Cardinals pitchers prior actions-

I know there really is no good solution, but once the warning is issued, you have basically taken the inside part of the plate away from the Pitchers- and the batters know it - there is an inequity there.

And The Cardinals Manager claimed he would have pulled the Reliever after he hit Harper, which I doubt seriously, He absolutely wanted to pull him after he hit Didi too, but was that because he was afraid the pitcher might hit another batter or because it was now no outs and men on 1st and 2nd and he was hoping to minimize the damage?

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

The Cards manager couldn’t be more wrong. A player may be ejected at any time. The three batter minimum rule doesn’t effect that.

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

"PENALTY: If, after warning by the umpire, such delaying
action is repeated, the pitcher shall be removed from the game.
(9) Intentionally Pitch at the Batter.
(1) If, in the umpire’s judgment, such a violation occurs, the
umpire may elect either to:
(A) Expel the pitcher, or the manager and the pitcher,
from the game, or
(B) may warn the pitcher and the manager of both
teams that another such pitch will result in the
immediate expulsion of that pitcher (or a replacement) and the manager.
If, in the umpire’s judgment, circumstances warrant, both
teams may be officially “warned” prior to the game or at
any time during the game."

Pretty clear that the rule says "intentionally pitch at batter"

If your argument is that umpires might accidentally interpret mistake HBP as purposeful HBP, well, it's always a judgment call. Your original statement implied that it was unfair that the Phillies don't get to hit anyone. It's "unfair" in the general eye-for-an-eye context. However, MLB should be in the business of preventing purposeful HBP, and that's what they are doing with this warning.

"I know there really is no good solution, but once the warning is issued, you have basically taken the inside part of the plate away from the Pitchers- and the batters know it - there is an inequity there."

Applies for both teams. It sucks, but it's not unfair, and it doesn't bias any individual teams. Your "Phillies were hit twice and Cardinals weren't hit" argument doesn't apply.

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

What's great is that this is in the NL and there will be plenty more opportunities to settle any scores. Since MLB want's to keep coming up with silly rules i have an idea for a new one. Allow fighting but the only caveat is you are only allowed to use an inflatable bat from the concession stands

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

Just checked the schedule , today's game is the last time they play this season. Today the Card's are giving away a Bob Gibson- Lou Brock lapel pin , we all know how Bob would have handled the situation lol

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

The intentional or unintentional hitting of a batter after both teams have been warned results in an automatic expulsion of the pitcher and manager- there is no choice or option for the umpire to call subsequent HBP as anything else.

The unintentional part only applies prior to a warning being given out-

The warning should only go to the team that hit batters - that way the team that got hit twice gains an advantage at the plate. That would even things up a bit - remember that if the pitcher isn’t intentionally throwing at hitter the umpire doesn’t have to issue a warning, and as far as allowing it to be a judgement call, I’m still looking for the phantoms interference in the Brewers- Marlins game yesterday

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

What is the source for this?

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

Official rules of MLB updated 1993 regarding this express situation

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

I have posted the Official Rules above and it literally says "Intentionally Pitch at the Batter"

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

From the official Rules of Baseball

http://mlb.mlb.com/documents/0/8/0/..

(9) Intentionally Pitch at the Batter.

(1) If, in the umpire’s judgment, such a violation occurs, the
umpire may elect either to:

(A) Expel the pitcher, or the manager and the pitcher,
from the game, or

(B) may warn the pitcher and the manager of both
teams that another such pitch will result in the
immediate expulsion of that pitcher (or a replacement) and the manager.



There is no option after a warning, is issued to both teams another hit bats results in immediate expulsion

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

"another such pitch" is under the subheading "Intentionally Pitch at Batter" -- another such intentional pitch

If the umpire feels there was an intentional pitch, he can either eject or warn. Under this rule, intentional pitches are not auto-ejections and therefore the warning would be specific to another intentional pitch.

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

Well I really don't want to get into an argument or say you are incorrect, but after a warning I have NEVER not seen the offending pitcher not get ejected. ANYONE??

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

never. Once the warning is given and a batter is hit, I have never seen an umpire not eject the pitcher. The judgement has always been deemed intentional.
I agree with the original thought in the post. That both teams should not get warnings once one team has been deemed to have intentionally hit a batter. It takes away the ability for the team who was at bat to pitch inside when they take the field. If a curve gets away from a guy he and his manager will get thrown out because no ump will not say it was unintentional

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

"Well I really don't want to get into an argument or say you are incorrect, but after a warning I have NEVER not seen the offending pitcher not get ejected. ANYONE??"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNZ..
last 30 sec

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

Not sure of the point you are making here htennis. I thought you were going to show an ump not throwing someone out after being warned and deeming a pitch that hits a batter after a warning unintentional. I still have yet to see that.

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

I can't even...did you guys watch the video?

I refuse to talk anymore about a clear misinterpretation of the MLB rule. I have provided a counterexample.

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

I actually did watch the entire video, the scene at the end ( last 30 seconds) is of Jose Urena throwing at Acuna on the 1st pitch of the game, no warnings had been issued yet.

It is the conclusion of the at bat at the Beginning of the video

Unless I am wrong, that situation is not a valid example from what I can see -

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

HTennis I don't know what you are getting all bothered about. No-one is disputing the rule.
We are saying that we have never seen a pitcher NOT get thrown out AFTER a warning by the umps. When the rules state that it is up to the umps discretion as to intent.
We are saying it is unfair to warn both teams. If my batter gets hit, or 2 batters get hit, and the ump issues warnings to both teams, my pitcher cant now pitch inside because if a slider in the dirt hits a batter my pitcher will be ejected.
That is not disputing what the rule is. We are saying that the rule is horse poo. Not fair.
Maybe go back and read what was written to help you in your misunderstanding of what sincity and myself are pointing out.

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

I think everyone is right here - the rule says the ump does not *have* to throw out the pitcher but JIm and SIN are saying that they have never seen an ump NOT throw out a pitcher after he hits someone, intentional or not.

In my limited recollection, I don't recall an ump not tossing a pitcher either, but I honestly can't remember if I ever saw a situation where a pitcher clearly was not trying to throw at someone and got tossed anyway.

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

The Urena-Acuna situation was the first pitch of the game. They are correct on that. Warnings were issued after that pitch. Braves had to wait until the next time they faced Urena to get their 'revenge'. It was a whole different series and they missed him as the pitch sailed behind him.

Only time I can remember a pitcher being thrown out with absolutely no intent was a video I came across from Jomboy Media on YouTube (For language purposes not sure if it should be posted) Justin Turner got plunked in a blowout against Philly and he was at first base kinda perplexed you could see him saying "it was a curveball. He was not trying to hit me" basically.

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

Genuinely have no idea what cloud is hanging over this thread right now.

08/20/2019

1st inning: Hernández hits Acuña. Teams are warned.

4th inning: After warnings, Hernández hits Hechavarría unintentionally. No one is ejected.

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

You said last :30 of the video so I don't think we saw that in the video. If it's in there, I know I just jumped to the last :30.

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

Last 20 seconds is more specific, but yes it is in the last 30 seconds.

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

I originally did NOT watch the video, lol. I assumed everyone else did and the last 30 seconds of the video was the Urena-Acuna situation.

Tennis is actually right here I am pretty sure. The last 30 seconds is later in the same game of the first clip. Acuna got hit and warnings were issued. Then Hechavarria got hit in the same game 3 innings later and the umpires ruled it not intentional and did not eject the pitcher.

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

Well that makes sense then, I honestly had never seen pitcher NOT get tossed after the warnings were given, but admit to not having seen every game!

I didn't realize it was another batter later in that clip- I thought it was a continuation of the start of the video

Wasn't trying to start an argument, just don't like the warning having to be given to both teams -

Re: Ridiculous Take on things

Ok. So I never saw it. Now we have seen it once. Has it happened. I am sure it has. Doesn't change the fact the rule is unfair IMO. Which is what the original post was about.
I have not seen every game where pitchers have been warned. I am sure I can see anything if I google search for it. It isn't the norm
.

Re: Re: Ridiculous Take on things

From what I've seen lately it seems the Phillies don't exactly live in a glass house , see friday night . I think it's worse when a reliever in the NL throws at a guy because they hardly ever have to bat and it just ends up hurting their teammates ala Harper.