In view o what happened to Don Mattingly last nite, stepping off the dirt and then back on to the mound, would you, as an umpire call this a second visit in the inning, if the opposing manager didn't raise the question?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
If I were the PU, yes. And as Adrian Johnson attempted, I would first try to keep the manager from making such a dumb mistake.
I would also enforce the rule properly by ejecting the coach and requiring the pitcher to pitch to the current batter and then remove him. Even with no batter in the box, there is a current batter established as soon as the last batter finished his at bat.
I would also enforce the rule properly by ejecting the coach and requiring the pitcher to pitch to the current batter and then remove him. Even with no batter in the box, there is a current batter established as soon as the last batter finished his at bat.
TR,
I didnt see the event in question, yet the strict OBR rules that MLB plays under doesnt give them much leeway.......the PBUC manual that guides the MLB crews says that "the conference is over when the manager leaves the 18 foot circle surrounding the pitchers plate and must keep going and not return to the mound...." Thats pretty clear instruction..........(NCAA is similar as well)....
Personally I prefer the NFHS rule that states that the meeting ends when the manager crosses the foul line on his way back to the dugout.....
Now to real world applications....In the summer the majority of the fields I umpire on are dirt infields........the 18 foot circle is my judgment...and my crew consists of just me and my one partner....and there may be other issues to attend to and less eyes to monitor such an infraction...so to that end, I might not have enforced the strict letter of the rule in such a case.....
YET.........In the case of a field where there was a circle and I have seen the infraction, and on top of that an opposing manager mentions it to me, There is no choice but to enforce the rule as written....
I didnt see the event in question, yet the strict OBR rules that MLB plays under doesnt give them much leeway.......the PBUC manual that guides the MLB crews says that "the conference is over when the manager leaves the 18 foot circle surrounding the pitchers plate and must keep going and not return to the mound...." Thats pretty clear instruction..........(NCAA is similar as well)....
Personally I prefer the NFHS rule that states that the meeting ends when the manager crosses the foul line on his way back to the dugout.....
Now to real world applications....In the summer the majority of the fields I umpire on are dirt infields........the 18 foot circle is my judgment...and my crew consists of just me and my one partner....and there may be other issues to attend to and less eyes to monitor such an infraction...so to that end, I might not have enforced the strict letter of the rule in such a case.....
YET.........In the case of a field where there was a circle and I have seen the infraction, and on top of that an opposing manager mentions it to me, There is no choice but to enforce the rule as written....
quote:I would also enforce the rule properly by ejecting the coach and requiring the pitcher to pitch to the current batter and then remove him.
I think they got it right. You only eject the manager and require the pitcher to complete the at bat if the manager has been warned that he cannot return to the mound. There was no such warning in this case. Mattingly stepped out of the circle and then stepped right back in.
quote:Originally posted by Yakyu:quote:I would also enforce the rule properly by ejecting the coach and requiring the pitcher to pitch to the current batter and then remove him.
I think they got it right. You only eject the manager and require the pitcher to complete the at bat if the manager has been warned that he cannot return to the mound. There was no such warning in this case. Mattingly stepped out of the circle and then stepped right back in.
According to Mattingly, Adrian Johnson attempted to stop him.
Anyway, if you had read and quoted my entire post you would have seen that I stated that I would attempt to prevent the manager from making the illegal trip before ejecting him.
quote:According to Mattingly, Adrian Johnson attempted to stop him.
If Mattingly says so, the umpire may have attempted to stop him. But I have watched the replay several times and he wheeled around and stepped back into the circle immediately after stepping out. Unless the umpire is psychic, he couldn't have known that was about to happen and warn Mattingly not to do it.
quote:Anyway, if you had read and quoted my entire post you would have seen that I stated that I would attempt to prevent the manager from making the illegal trip before ejecting him.
Sorry for the confusion. I intended to comment on the actual situation that happened (as I saw it, with no warning), not the hypothetical situation you described that included the warning.
That's a ticky tacky rule. So much so that apparently the umpire didn't even know the rule. Mattingly takes 1, maybe 2 steps off the mound, turns around takes 2 steps back, says a few words and walks off.
piaa_ump, the NFHS rule makes much more sense to me. But rules apparently aren't supposed to make sense..
Here's the video. http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=10115281
piaa_ump, the NFHS rule makes much more sense to me. But rules apparently aren't supposed to make sense..
Here's the video. http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=10115281
From the LA Dodgers website:
"Mattingly had left the mound, taken a couple steps, then turned back to speak to Loney. He heard home-plate umpire Adrian Johnson say "No, no, no." Without meaning to, Mattingly had gone back on the dirt and visited the mound twice, forcing a pitching change.
"I had a little bit of a feeling at that point," Mattingly said. "I'm aware of the rule. But again, I didn't realize, I kind of felt like I turned and just turned back around. Again, obviously, I guess, I guess I didn't."
"Mattingly had left the mound, taken a couple steps, then turned back to speak to Loney. He heard home-plate umpire Adrian Johnson say "No, no, no." Without meaning to, Mattingly had gone back on the dirt and visited the mound twice, forcing a pitching change.
"I had a little bit of a feeling at that point," Mattingly said. "I'm aware of the rule. But again, I didn't realize, I kind of felt like I turned and just turned back around. Again, obviously, I guess, I guess I didn't."
quote:Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
That's a ticky tacky rule. So much so that apparently the umpire didn't even know the rule. Mattingly takes 1, maybe 2 steps off the mound, turns around takes 2 steps back, says a few words and walks off.
piaa_ump, the NFHS rule makes much more sense to me. But rules apparently aren't supposed to make sense..
It makes sense. It's one of the few rules designated to avoid delay of game and MLB umpires have been instructed to enforce all such rules. When the manager leaves the dirt circle (mound) he is to proceed directly to his dugout.
In the old, old days, he would hesitate and wander back and forth, delaying the game, usually waiting for a reliever to get ready. This fixed that.
If MLB is going to give the umpires discretion, then they should have discretion. If Mattingly had intended to delay the game, that's one thing. Looking at the video there's no intention of doing that. In fact, Bochy delayed the game more than Mattingly did.
quote:Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
If MLB is going to give the umpires discretion, then they should have discretion.
They do not have discretion enforcing that rule.
Imagine if Adrian had tried to ignore it. Then Bochy would have ended up ejected for what started out as a violation by Mattingly. What sense does that make?
quote:Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
That's a ticky tacky rule. So much so that apparently the umpire didn't even know the rule.
They know the rule. They called the violation.
As for how it was enforced, perhaps Adrian didn't consider his "no, no, no" as a warning. I don't know. I would have, but I am not a MLB umpire.
quote:They do not have discretion enforcing that rule.
Imagine if Adrian had tried to ignore it. Then Bochy would have ended up ejected for what started out as a violation by Mattingly. What sense does that make?
That's my point. They SHOULD have discretion. They have discretion as to whether to eject a pitcher even after a warning has been given, but they don't have discretion on something like this?
quote:They know the rule. They called the violation.
Why call a conference with all 4 umpires if he knew the rule? I thought the whole point of the rule was to keep the game moving?
The conference was to get the penalty right, not the call.
The whole concept of umpire "huddles" is relatively new and brought on in response to managers and players. It's a case of be careful what you wish for.
Again, this is an administrative rule. There is no room for discretion. There are some rules I wish were different, but I accept that that isn't my role in the game. If it were, I'd be contacting the MLB rules committee with my suggestions.
The whole concept of umpire "huddles" is relatively new and brought on in response to managers and players. It's a case of be careful what you wish for.
Again, this is an administrative rule. There is no room for discretion. There are some rules I wish were different, but I accept that that isn't my role in the game. If it were, I'd be contacting the MLB rules committee with my suggestions.
My view is that Mattingly turned so abruptly that there was no time to give a useful warning. The manager needs a few seconds to understand and heed the warning.
So perhaps the conclusion was that effectively no warning was given.
So perhaps the conclusion was that effectively no warning was given.
What if Mattingly had just turned around to answer the question or talked over his shoulder on the way off the field, answering the question without reentering the circle? Would that have been considered a 2nd visit also?
quote:Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
My view is that Mattingly turned so abruptly that there was no time to give a useful warning. The manager needs a few seconds to understand and heed the warning.
So perhaps the conclusion was that effectively no warning was given.
According to the article in the SF Chronicle's Sporting Green, that was McClelland's stance as he argued that MLB's statement that the umpire's made a mistake in enforcement was incorrect.
MLB considered the "no, no, no" a warning. McClelland did not, and, for the first time I can remember, he and his crew have publicly disagreed with MLB's interp.
I can understand both sides and am glad it wasn't my call.
quote:would you, as an umpire call this a second visit in the inning, if the opposing manager didn't raise the question?
I would not have:
1. looks like Donnie BB's shoelaces were clearly still over the plane of the dirt.
2. he was talking directly to a defensive player on the spin back, that player did not go directly to the pitcher.
3. Chain of events seems that no ruling was even considered until approached by the opposing manager, seems the crew didn't initially call it, if they didn't think it a violation at that point, I wouldn't have changed my mind, simply, coach in my judgement he did not conclude his visit, play on.
No second visit, no warning, no call, IMHO.
quote:Originally posted by jjk:
3. Chain of events seems that no ruling was even considered until approached by the opposing manager, seems the crew didn't initially call it, if they didn't think it a violation at that point, I wouldn't have changed my mind, simply, coach in my judgement he did not conclude his visit, play on.
No second visit, no warning, no call, IMHO.
The question is not over a second visit. Mattingly stepped back onto the mound. The umpires, MLB and the Dodgers, despite their dispute, all agree that there was a second visit. Remember, PU Adrian Johnson told Mattingly, "no, no, no" as he saw him turn around.
The debate is over penalty. The umpire believe the rule (comment) requires that manager willfully ingnored his warning before they can require the pitcher to pitch to the current batter. According to McClelland, "Mattingly's mistake was not a defiant action."
MLB, in its statement, disagrees with the intent of the comment after the rule.
Jimmy,
Not disagreeing with you but how can "no, no, no" be considered a warning. Mattingly had no way of knowing HU was even talking to him or what he could be warning him of. I agree with the on field umps interp.
If he crossed the the baseline on his way back to the dugout and turned to yell something to his defensive players is that considered a trip?
As a coach sometimes it is very difficult to be heard, how far out of the dugout do you let your coaches (while on defense) come before warning them?
Not disagreeing with you but how can "no, no, no" be considered a warning. Mattingly had no way of knowing HU was even talking to him or what he could be warning him of. I agree with the on field umps interp.
If he crossed the the baseline on his way back to the dugout and turned to yell something to his defensive players is that considered a trip?
As a coach sometimes it is very difficult to be heard, how far out of the dugout do you let your coaches (while on defense) come before warning them?
quote:Originally posted by Gold Glove:
Jimmy,
Not disagreeing with you but how can "no, no, no" be considered a warning. Mattingly had no way of knowing HU was even talking to him or what he could be warning him of. I agree with the on field umps interp.
It's a matter of interpretation and there is room for disagreement. Interestingly, after the game, Mattingly acknowledged he was warned. However, the umpire giving the "warning" disagreed.