Bloops: Mattingly’s two mound visits
Posted by Andy on July 21, 2010
Last night, the Dodgers were forced to take Jonathan Broxton out of the game after acting manager Don Mattingly inadvertently made two consecutive visits to the mound.
Here's the video, courtesy of MLB.com.
My thoughts:
- Wow, Mattingly just barely stepped off the mound--this is a new case of baseball being a game of inches. If Mattingly had stopped just half a step sooner, it would have been moot.
- What's with Vin Scully's pronunciation of "Bochy"? I've never heard anybody say it like that before.
- James Loney really does say "Hey Don" to Mattingly, which surprised me a little bit. I sort of assumed that the players didn't address the managers by their first name. Maybe I'm wrong about that, or maybe it's because Mattingly is normally the bench coach.
- Bochy pulled the same trick on Grady Little when Little was maanging the Dodgers.
- I find myself conflicted between feeling that Bochy is a genius and that this entire thing is tremendously stupid. I can't conceive of any possible advantage the Dodgers got from what happened and so removing Broxton on a technicality, especially at a key moment in the game, seems really odd. It reminds me of Joe Girardi's protest earlier this year when umpires gave Manny Delcarmen as much time as he needed to warm up despite being called in before the injury to Josh Beckett was announced.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Rules are rules and I agree to follow them. But come on this is a technicality. You become the best by beating the best the other teams have to offer. If you are going to make the teams best closer leave the game on a technicality... thats pretty low. I have no affiliation to either team so I don't really care but who won the game?
July 21st, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Looked on BR front page and saw that SF won the game. Kind of a shame. Not saying that Broxton would have isolated the damage but you have to think hes the guy you want in that situation.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:39 pm
The entire game was just so funny with the Dodgers haveing three guys ejected, and the Giants coming back from a 5 - 1 deficit. I agree I feel sort of bad for Mattingly, but he made a mistake and he has to deal with that. The Giants didn't have their closer in the game in the bottom of the ninth either, because Brian Wilson had pitched in the last 4 games. Baseball isn't about having the best you can offer, but its also about overcoming setbacks and still winning. The Giants played a hell of a game.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I credit Bochy for knowing the rule....as in golf sometimes knowing the rules can help you, but being ignorant of them never does you any good. A fantastic dog fight of a game by two of the games biggest rivals. The question is.....where was Larry Bowa? He's the guy with major league manager exp....
July 21st, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Rules are rules are rules. If only the umpires enforced all rules with the same discipline (I'm thinking of the free pass infielders get on the "in the area of 2nd base" when turning a DP) we wouldn't be so surprised about this one. Why is Bochy to be criticized for insisting that the umpires carry out the rules? If the rule is ridiculous, then it should be reviewed and changed.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I agree with #5: Rules are rules. You have to know them and follow them. Mattingly even admitted to it after the game that he knew he screwed up when he turned around.
Plus, I honestly don't think it would have mattered anyway...Broxton was toast in that game, he didn't have it.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Cheers to Bochy! Knowing the rules inside and out while being able to cite them on the field in order to help your team win is one of the top jobs of a manager. If you don't want to get called on a technicality, don't commit a technical infraction. End of story.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Well, if rules are rules the pine tar game was certainly wrongly decided. I don't think I've ever seen this come up before, but I would have assumed that to be charged with two trips you'd have to cross the foul line twice.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Hats off to Bochy knowing the exact rule, 8.06
"A manager or coach is considered to have concluded his visit to the mound when he leaves the 18-foot circle surrounding the pitcher’s rubber."
I cant blame him for trying to help his team, but
1) the umpires do not call everything in the book by the book and there is room for judgement and I think this was a case where they should have told Bochy to sit down because the intent was to finish the conference that already started, not start another conference
2) The rule says the manager or coach must LEAVE the dirt mound and it looked like Mattingly did not COMPLETELY leave it so his lack of knowledge of the rules did not allow him to argue that he did infact not leave the mound yet as the rule is not clear on the technical definition of the term "leaves"
It seemed like the rookie ump got intimidated by the veteran Bochy and gave in.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I think the umps discussed it in detail before making the call, so I don't agree with the intimidation factor. But you're right that if the umps are going to start calling things by the book, then a lot of things will need to change, including baserunners chatting with the first baseman of the opposing team.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:43 pm
#5, The "free pass" you speak of is actually in the rule book. Its called a neighborhood play. It was created to prevent injuries from players sliding into the fielders.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Jerry, regarding the pine-tar game. While the final decision MLB made certainly made sense, it still was a bit odd. After reading a few articles on the topic, I think it's clear that if anyone else owned the Yankees but George Steinbrenner, or if it happened to another team, the umpire's decision would have been allowed to stand. The pine tar game happened at the height of Steinbrenner's antics and the powers that be were looking to stick it to Steinbrenner, so they did. A few years later, Fay Vincent used the Dave Winfield/Howard Spira debacle to force Steinbrenner out of baseball forever, even though most viewed the incident as unfortunate, but minor. Speculation was another owner would have received maybe a year to 18-month suspension. The other MLB owners became concerned with a number of things Vincent was doing, and became concerned that if he could force Steinbrenner to give up day-to-day control of the Yankees he could do the same to one of them. They basically forced Vincent to allow Steinbrenner back into the game as a reminder that Vincent was there to serve the owners, not the other way around.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:54 pm
@11 - I don't think the "Neighborhood Play" is actually in the rules anywhere because it directly contradicts the idea that you must touch a base to get a forceout. That being said it has become ingrained in baseball culture to the point where it is an accepted addendum to the rules.
July 21st, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Greatest Giants-dodgers game I've seen in a long time with a crazy 9th inning...
And yes, a rule is a rule is a rule is a rule... I don't understand how anyone can criticize Bochy for this.
July 21st, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I think umpires have cracked down on the neighborhood play. 20+ years ago you see fielders who are three feet from second base. You never see that anymore. I think second base is touched on the vast majority of forces now (it might not look like it because the fielders are so fast, with great footwork and balance). Very rarely the fielder might skip past the base by a couple inches, and they let it go if it's not a close play. One close plays there's a huge outcry when the base isn't touched (didn't this happen in the postseason last year? I forget so quickly...)
July 21st, 2010 at 3:15 pm
If the umpires don't force him from the game then Bochy plays the game under protest and probably wins that protest unless the umpires falsely claim they didn't see him step off the mound. Giants end up with two bites at the apple (beat Broxton or win the replay). Mattingly probably knew this, I assume they argued as long as they did, in part, to give the replacement pitcher time to get warmed up. In the end, the Dodgers probably benefitted from having it called correctly at the time, though it did not work out for them.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Seems picky. He's barely off the mound, and I think you can make a case that he WASN'T off the mound.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Not to change the subject, but here's another situation that is certain to come up sometime, and I don't know what rule would precisely cover it. With no runners on base and two strikes on the batter, the pitcher uncorks a wild one that flies over the head of the catcher and to the backstop. The batter watches it go by, then belatedly swings and runs to first base on the dropped third strike rule. My question is, at what point is a pitch no longer a pitch? Certainly if the catcher catches a pitch before a batter swings, the umpire would have no hesitation in calling a strike, but what rule would govern this situation?
July 21st, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Interesting question, Wboenig. I would think there has to be a rule about when the pitch is considered "already pitched" but I have no clue.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:30 pm
I think you could make the case that he was never more than 9 feet from the center of the pitching rubber which places him in the 18' diameter of the pitching mound. I've never seen that called before but good for Bochy, that's his job. Catchers know the rules better than first basemen. Too bad for Mat The Bat though. Not the best start for the heir apparent.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:42 pm
@#18
Any good umpire wouldn't call that a strike, because the player wasn't trying to hit the ball.
"A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which_
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;"
July 21st, 2010 at 4:09 pm
To compliment #18's question, at what point is a pitch considered a pitch. For example, Tim Lincecum lost control of a ball and lobbed it during a pitch, it didnt even make the plate. Heres the video http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=10115281&topic_id=11493214 .
The ruling was no pitch. You might think this is the case because the ball didn't reach the plate, however, you probably don't know that a ball that bounces before reaching the plate and is hit by a batter is in play. A player can even hit a home run with that ball if it goes over the outfield fences.
July 21st, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Wait, what precisely does the rule say? Is a "trip to the mound" literally that... walking onto the mound? That seems a bit silly. I understand that rules are rules... but what IS the rule here?
July 21st, 2010 at 4:30 pm
There are MANY situations you could dream up similar to post #18 where the umpire would need to use their judgement. I think it would be obvious if a player did not swing, looked back and saw the ball get past the catcher to the point that he could get to first safely, swing and then make it to first. In this case the umpire should not allow it because the batter did not indend to swing at the pitch. This is why it is good to have humans umping instead of robots.
I have been waiting my entire life to see a player be heads up enough to swing at a pitch, with 2 strikes on him, while it is still coming towards the plate but obviously out of the catchers reach and immediately start running to first. Similar in principle to Miguel Cabrera getting a go-ahead RBI single on a pitch that was too close to the plate when the pitcher was trying to IBB him (if I remember correctly, I think this happened around 2006).
July 21st, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Breaking news from Ken Rosenthal that the rule was enforced incorrectly. Mattingly should have been ejected and Broxton allowed to finish pitching to the announced batter.
July 21st, 2010 at 4:36 pm
MLB has announced that the game will not be replayed, which boggles my mind, since this is a clear case of the umpire incorrectly applying the rules. Same as pine tar.
July 21st, 2010 at 4:40 pm
#23, I listed the rule in post #9, but here is the official rule:
8.06 "A manager or coach is considered to have concluded his visit to the mound when he leaves the 18-foot circle surrounding the pitcher’s rubber."
And here is the penalty which was incorrectly inforced as noted above, again showing Mattingly does not know the rules:
"In a case where a manager has made his 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 that he cannot return to the mound, the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he 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 his pitcher will be removed from the game after he pitches to one hitter, so he can have a substitute pitcher warmed up.
The substitute pitcher will be allowed eight preparatory pitches or more if in the umpire’s judgment circumstances justify."
July 21st, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Andy-
Does that mean that two visits to the mound is a manager ejection and not a player removal? Or was there something unique about this case?
July 21st, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Another, "What-do-the-rules-say-about-this" scenario is this:
Player on 1st. Foul ball hit down the line. Player on 1st runs and makes it to 3rd before the ball is called foul. Batter returns to the box. Player stays on 3rd. Does he HAVE to go back to 1st? Is there a rule that says a player must touch the base he occupies between pitches or something?
July 21st, 2010 at 4:43 pm
This seems to be the operative phrase:
"after being warned by the umpire that he cannot return to the mound."
Did the umpire offer a warning? If not, it seems that Mattingly broke no rule. Or, at least, not this rule.
July 21st, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Rule 4.19: Comment: Whenever a manager protests a game because of alleged misapplication of the rules the protest will not be recognized unless the umpires are notified at the time the play under protest occurs and before the next pitch, play or attempted play. A protest arising on a game-ending play may be filed until 12 noon the following day with the league office.
So, if Mattingly would have known the rules and protested the ruling before the next pitcher threw the next pitch the Dodgers would have a chance to replay the game and possibly win it, assumg the Commish's office would allow it because:
"Even if it is held that the protested decision violated the rules, no replay of the game will be ordered unless in the opinion of the League President the violation adversely affected the protesting team’s chances of winning the game."
If the Dodgers miss the playoffs by 1 game Mattingly may surpass Fred Merkle for the all-time "boner".
July 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Mike-
That may be the rules, but that is stupid. The umps and the league are supposed to be the foremost experts on the rules. To put the onus on the managers is unfair, even if it's fair to expect them to know as well.
This is why I'm bothered by the NFL Replay Challenge rule... it becomes the responsibility of the coach to correct the mistake of someone else. The responsibility should lie with the folks who F'ed up in the first place.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Well Bochy knew the rules and Mattingly didnt, possibly costing his team a game in standing. Honestly, I dont feel sorry for him because if I was an MLB manager or coach I would have the entire rule book memorized to the point where I could recite it front to back, or at least have someone on my staff who could.
In Mattingly's defense though, I assume Torre was still watching the game in the clubhouse, and after Mattingly came back before the next pitcher threw the next pitch he could have told Mattingly to tell the umpires the Dodgers were playing the under protest because of the incorrect enforcement of the rules. So it looks like Torre didnt know the rules either.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:11 pm
33-
But the rule requires that the challenge be made before the next pitch. And given how dense the rule book is, even an encyclopedic knowledge of it would generally take longer than that to access.
Yes, Bochy knew the rule, but only partly. He likely didn't know that it is the manager who should be ejected while the pitcher finishes the AB (unless he DID know this but simply exploited the umps lack of knowledge since Broxton leaving was clearly of greater value than Mattingly's ejection). And he largely just fell back on the general rule we are all at least somewhat aware of forbidding a coach from visiting a pitcher twice in the same inning.
The problem is, suppose Broxton jumped back on the mound and fired a pitch before Bochy could object. That would cease his opportunity to protest, no? That is hardly how we want games to go.
We see this in the NFL. Because a challenge must be issues before the ball is snapped, any potential challenge by the offense can be thwarted by a hurried snap. We've seen teams run up to the line and just snap and dive into the line to avoid a challenge. Is that how we want games decided? Can your guy jump out of the dugout before my guy can throw a pitch? I realize it's much rarer in baseball, but the mindset that it is the manager's job to correct the errors of the officials is simply flawed. A lot of NCAA football conferences and the NBA have it right: if there is a question about a call or rule application, the game stops and the referees take it upon themselves to correct it.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:11 pm
And what is lost in all this is that the UMPIRE didn't know the rule, which is simply unforgivable.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:22 pm
I agree the #1 story from this above Bochy being savy and Mattingly looking stupid is that the umps got the rule interpretation wrong.
But, if judge it how it played out, you know that Bochy didnt know the full rule. If the Dodgers decided to play the game in protest before the next pitch Bochy could have countered by explaining the correct rules to the umps, making them eject Donnie and put Brox back in so that the Dodgers could not have played in the game in protest. Based on how quickly Bochy knew the rules, before the next pitch was thrown by Brox as you mentioned above, makes me think he knew the entire rule.
Earlier this year the incompetent Ken Macha saw an opposing catcher stop a harmless ball in the dirt from rolling away from him with his mask (although in no way did it prevent a runner from advancing) and Macha called it out to the ump right away even though they all missed it. In the rulebook this would allow all runners to advance 1 base and the umps gave the runners a base. That is an example of a manager knowing an obscure rule right away that helped his team.
If you have a chance to play a game in protest you have no reason not to since it can only help you, if you win you dont replay the game and if you lose you might get to replay the game.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:23 pm
*you DONT know that Bochy didnt know the full rule.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:25 pm
So let me ask you guys this.... if the manager doesn't go onto the pitching mound/circle area, does that not count as a trip to the mound? I mean, if the players come to him just short of the mound....
July 21st, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Thomas, Rule 8.06 tries to handle this:
8.06(b) A second trip to the same pitcher in the same inning will cause this pitcher’s automatic removal;
Rule 8.06 Comment: 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.
July 21st, 2010 at 6:16 pm
It's not a fair comparison between replay in the NFL and protests in MLB. In the NFL the point of replay is to challenge judgement calls on the field--fumbles, forward progress, catches/drops. The decision to challenge isn't based on rules knowledge or interpretation. In MLB, the protest is directly related to rules interpretation. For this reason, the idea that a protest in MLB needs to be filed immediately is insane to me. As BSK says (#34) the rule book is so long and complicated that it's impossible to have a detailed knowledge of all the rules and be able to apply them immediately.
Just think about how long it took this mound rule to get interpreted. If baseball managers are supposed to have such great knowledge of all the detailed rules, then why did it take more than half a day for it to come out that the rule was applied incorrectly? With all the managers and ex-managers around, and in this day and age, why wasn't it known immediately about these mistakes?
Nobody knows the rules book that well. The umpires should in theory, but it's damned difficult to know everything. Anybody who thinks Mattingly is dumb for what happened is being silly.
July 21st, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Andy-
I realize the NFL-Replay/MLB-Protest analogy isn't particularly apt, for exactly the reasons you specified. Nonetheless, I am bothered that the onus is put on the people who DIDN'T mess up to account for those who did, be it a judgment call or a rule application.
The Dodgers lost a game they might have otherwise won because a rule was applied incorrectly. To say, "Well, tough, you should have complained sooner," is just nonsense. I could understand if they protested days after the fact. But this is less than a day later. And, in reality, they had but mere moments to protest (admittedly, because it was their pitcher on the mound they had an indefinite amount of time, but this won't always be the case).
My question is, did Bochy say, "Hey, that's two visits!" and the Ump said, "You're right, Broxton is out of the game," or did Bochy say, "Hey, that's two visits and now Broxton has to leave!" and the Ump said, "Okay."? And, regardless of what happened, why didn't any of the three other umps speak up to correct? This was a major failing by the umpires. If the rule is too complicated that none of the four umpires was able to correctly apply it, how can we fault Mattingly for not appropriately challenging?
Also, to those who point out instances of managers calling out rule violations (such as Bochy or Macha), this does not necessarily demonstrate an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. Some guys know random pieces here and there for whatever reason. I bet, from here on out, Mattingly will know the mound-visit rules inside out, but may not necessarily bone up on other areas of the rule book. Perhaps Bochy and Macha can immediately recall every rule, but I highly doubt it, just because of the near impossibility of such a task. Rather, they likely got lucky, happening to know a rule for a given situation that happened to play out in front of them. So I don't think it's fair to hold those instances up as evidence that some managers know the rulebook inside and out and, thus, all should.
The Umps F'ed up and it should be up to the Umps and MLB to fix it, which is possible in this situation, regardless of the lack of a formal protest. I realize that won't happen, but it is what SHOULD happen.
July 21st, 2010 at 8:42 pm
I guess I've missed something. Why would the appropriate ruling be to eject Mattingly? I'm fairly sure I've seen two visits to the mound before, and it's the pitcher that leaves the game, not the manager. Is it because the visits were in succession, without a pitch being thrown?
July 21st, 2010 at 9:09 pm
I think the reason behind requiring an immediate protest is fairly simple: it gives the umpires the opportunity to correct the rules misinterpretation and play the game correctly. If the manager can wait until a later point in the game or until after the game has concluded he would have no incentive to point out the correction at the time when it can be corrected without prejudice to either side. You can't let a team play a game hoping it wins, but knowing that it can ask for a replay if it ends up losing the game.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Good thought, Evan, that makes a lot of sense.
By the way, with regards to the issue of Mattingly being warned, apparently there is clear video footage of the umpire saying "you can't do that, you can't do that" to Mattingly when he turned around. It's not clear, in fact, whether it was Bochy who first said something or the ump. It may be that Bochy, upon hearing the ump say that, then pointed out that it should constitute 2 visits and Broxton should be removed.
By the way, I remember watching a Phillies game on TV years and years ago when the manager--can't remember if it was Elia or Leyva but it was in that era--came out of the dugout a few steps, then remembered that he'd been out once already that inning, and ran back into the dugout, but they made him take the pitcher out anyway, calling it a second visit.
I have also seen but can't remember when a pitching coach go to the mound apparently forgetting that it was a second visit, intending to chat with the pitcher about strategy and being taken by surprise that the pitcher had to come out.
JT, the issue is that I think the rule is designed to prevent managers from getting a second 'sneaky' visit--from engaging in some form of communication designed to act like a visit without actually having a visit. That's viewed as poor faith and worthy of explusion.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:55 pm
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/4414/mattingly-tripped-up-by-hazy-rules
Really interesting take. Apparently the "ejection" rule is rooted in preventing managers from circumventing the rule requiring pitchers to throw to one batter. Basically, if I insert a pitcher and you pinch hit, I'm not allowed to remove that pitcher immediately. A way around that is to double-visit during that batter's AB and be FORCED to remove the pitcher. To avoid that, the manager is ejected, the pitcher is required to pitch to that hitter, and then is forced out.
Very interesting stuff.
Evan, great point about the protest. Considering that, I would simply say that the onus is on the umps to stop the game and get the rule right, bringing out the rule book if necessary. Obviously, this could still happen if every ump is CONVINCED that they are applying the rule correctly (thereby negating the need to use the rule book) and no one objects ('protests'). But I'd still like the umpires to take more initiative and not wait/rely on managers protesting.
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:57 am
Every boss I've worked for was referred to by their first name by their employees. Why should baseball be any different? I'd be surprised if anybody actually said "Hey Mr. Mattingly!" unless they were a kid politely asking for an autograph. Casey Blake today referred to Torre as "Joe," so I doubt it has anything to do with whether someone is a bench coach or the manager.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:20 am
Right, they're all adults and this is 2010. Maybe some players call their managers "Skip" or something, but I'd assume most use first names. People have always made a big deal of Jeter calling Torre "Mr. Torre."
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I like to call my boss 'coach'. I work in a school. My boss is a 70-year-old man. But it's more fun that way.
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
This is one of those rules that through common sense (or through sheer exasperation) an ump should be able to ignore. Mattingly was not even off the mound. It is part of that slippery slope that causes things to start adding up (by the slowing down of the game)that are driving old baseball fans away.
From the early 60's I was a Dodgers fan, read huge fan. The game simply slowed to a crawl. I realize that the "two visits" rule was meant to speed up the game but in this instance it should have been overlooked. That would have been understandable and would not have, again, stopped the game.
I am not the only guy of my age group (I'm 61) that feels this way. Guys at work have turned to other sports after more than half a lifetime of baseball.
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Scully has always had weird pronunciations for some names. He always says "Shawn Estes" as "Es-tees" as in "Testies" which I always found funny. (it's pronounced "es-tess")
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I watched the game and applaued Boche - who I think it a terrible manager - for a brilliant move. The Giants won that game because of that move. Torres gets a double off a cold Sherrill and the Giants win the game. It was awesome. Totally threw the Dodgers. Of course LA wins the next day because when it comes down to it, the Giants offense still sucks.
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I have always heard Estes rhyming with testes, usually in the same sentence like "I wish Estes had some testes."
July 22nd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Being a Giants fan and hearing his name a thousand times when he was coming up, Estes name is pronouned "ES-TESS"
It is not supposed to rhyme with "testes"
July 22nd, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Jim, your link in post no. 22 is the video of Mattingly's mound visit. It has nothing to do with Lincecum...
July 22nd, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Donnie Baseball clearly has more baseball to learn.
Remember when he got dinged in Spring Training, when he was managing a Dodger split-squad, for having his lineup bat out of order?
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:52 am
I agree with Post No. 25. The umpires violated the penalty part of the rule by making Broxton leave the game immediately. Broxton was entitled to continue pitching for one more batter. And this mistake by the umpires affected the outcome of the game. I think the Dodgers are entitled to replay the game.
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:55 am
Eddie, I think we all agree on that. The issue is that in order to replay the game, the Dodgers needed to file a protest right at that time. Evan explains it in #43 above.
July 26th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I agree with the umpire's intepretation of the rule. The further rule that forces the manager's ejection doesn't explicitly contradict the rule requiring the pitcher's removal, and seems to exist merely to prevent a manager from intentionally removing a pitcher who cannot be legally removed because he hasn't faced the batter. Since Broxton had already faced a batter, and since Mattingly wasn't trying to get Broxton removed by manipulation of the two-visit rule, removing Broxton was the right course of action. The league's ruling on the umpires' decision is wrong.