New rules
Steve Bielawski
eleven years (according to the article I read). Here are some of the new
rules.
Fielders may not step into the dugout to catch a foul ball. They can reach
into the dugout, but must have at least one foot on the field. (Players who
step into the dugout to catch a fair ball will immediately be investigated
for the use of human growth hormone--in my dreams.)
If a fielder falls into the dugout or the stands after making a legal catch,
all baserunners will be allowed to advance one base.
If a game is suspended while tied after the fifth inning and is not
completed on the scheduled date, the game will be completed before the start
of the next game between those two teams at that same site. If no more
games are scheduled between the teams at that site, then the game will be
resumed prior to the next game between the teams at the visiting team's
stadium. If there are no more games scheduled between the two teams, then
the game is declared a tie and is made up as though the tie game never
happened after the end of the season so long as it is necessary to determine
playoff standings.
A pitcher who is caught applying a foreign substance onto the ball will be
ejected and automatically suspended for ten games. So, Kenny Rogers may be
the last player to receive a warning about having a foreign substance on his
hand. (Of course, that substance on his hand may have been dry, and
therefore might not have gotten onto the ball. It might have been more of a
psychological thing--let the other team think you're doing something, and
when you wash it off and still blow them away, they feel really defeated.)
Similarly, the list of foreign substances now includes "soil, rosin,
paraffin, licorice, sandpaper, emery paper or other foreign substance". So,
no more rosin.
When there are no runners on base, the pitcher must throw the ball within 12
seconds of receiving it. (Previously, it was 20 seconds.) The penalty for
taking too long is an automatic ball.
The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box except for
certain game-play conditions (e.g., breaking a bat, running out a foul
ball). Penalty for stepping out is an automatic strike.
My personal favourite: A new rule states that although the rules in the
book refer to "he", "him", and "his", they are to be considered to refer to
"she", "her", or "hers", when applicable.
Reuters article, with picture of Sean Casey batting against Jeff Weaver:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070217/sp_nm/baseball_rules_dc_1
MLB.com article:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070216&content_id=1804831&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
David Panian
> A pitcher who is caught applying a foreign substance onto the ball
> will be
> ejected and automatically suspended for ten games. So, Kenny
> Rogers may be
> the last player to receive a warning about having a foreign
> substance on his
> hand. (Of course, that substance on his hand may have been dry, and
> therefore might not have gotten onto the ball. It might have been
> more of a
> psychological thing--let the other team think you're doing
> something, and
> when you wash it off and still blow them away, they feel really
> defeated.)
>
> Similarly, the list of foreign substances now includes "soil, rosin,
> paraffin, licorice, sandpaper, emery paper or other foreign
> substance". So,
> no more rosin.
>
I wonder if this applies to the rosin bag, which is technically used
to apply rosin to the pitcher's hand. If some rosin transfers from
the pitcher's hand to the ball, that seems incidental to me and not
grounds for ejection and suspension.
Heck, pitchers have used rosin bags for decades, right? If it's been
OK for so long, I don't see why it wouldn't be OK now.
Later, David
John Black
a crowd waiting hidden in the wings all ready to leap out with an (early)
chorus of "April Fool"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Bielawski" <stevebi...@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Tigers List" <tig...@lists.ibl.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:16 AM
Subject: New rules
> Major League Baseball has changed some rules, the first rules changes in
> eleven years (according to the article I read). Here are some of the new
> rules.
>
> Fielders may not step into the dugout to catch a foul ball. They can
> reach
> into the dugout, but must have at least one foot on the field. (Players
> who
> step into the dugout to catch a fair ball will immediately be investigated
> for the use of human growth hormone--in my dreams.)
They will certainly need the Instant Replay cameras "at the ready" (just
like whether the receiver had the requisite number of feet touching down
(dragging) in-bounds before they went out in the NFL)
> If a fielder falls into the dugout or the stands after making a legal
> catch,
> all baserunners will be allowed to advance one base.
I can see this as a means to keep runners from circling the bases while a
fielder lies unconscious (but still holding the ball) in a dugout, but what
if the fielder can "instantly" recover himself (oops, or "herself" - see
below) and be back "on the field" in time to prevent *any* advancement?
> If a game is suspended while tied after the fifth inning and is not
> completed on the scheduled date, the game will be completed before the
> start
> of the next game between those two teams at that same site. If no more
> games are scheduled between the teams at that site, then the game will be
> resumed prior to the next game between the teams at the visiting team's
> stadium. If there are no more games scheduled between the two teams, then
> the game is declared a tie and is made up as though the tie game never
> happened after the end of the season so long as it is necessary to
> determine
> playoff standings.
Sounds pretty much like the present system to me.
> A pitcher who is caught applying a foreign substance onto the ball will be
> ejected and automatically suspended for ten games. So, Kenny Rogers may
> be
> the last player to receive a warning about having a foreign substance on
> his
> hand. (Of course, that substance on his hand may have been dry, and
> therefore might not have gotten onto the ball. It might have been more of
> a
> psychological thing--let the other team think you're doing something, and
> when you wash it off and still blow them away, they feel really defeated.)
>
> Similarly, the list of foreign substances now includes "soil, rosin,
> paraffin, licorice, sandpaper, emery paper or other foreign substance".
> So,
> no more rosin.
If they remove the rosin bag, how does the pitcher remove sweat from his
hand? If the pitcher slides in the dirt (for any number of reasons) he now
has "dirt on his hand". Who makes the judgement as to when that is "fully"
removed? This sounds like something that the umpires are going to agree to
generally work their way *way*around.
> When there are no runners on base, the pitcher must throw the ball within
> 12
> seconds of receiving it. (Previously, it was 20 seconds.) The penalty
> for
> taking too long is an automatic ball.
Fine idea, but I never saw an ump enforce the 20 second rule and certain
pitchers (e.g. - Villone) would violate that rule on almost every pitch. I
suppose the players' solution would be to have the catcher keep an eye on
the "play clock" and if it gets to close - he suuddenly runs out for a
"conference".
> The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box except for
> certain game-play conditions (e.g., breaking a bat, running out a foul
> ball). Penalty for stepping out is an automatic strike.
For an awful lot of batters, this would be like mandating that they change
the way they breathe. They have been stepping out of the batters' box on
(essentially) every pitch in *every* AB of *every* game of *every* season
for the past 5, 10, or even 20 years. I would guess that this would also
mean that the batter could *not* step out to dry his hands (just like the
pitcher can't use the rosin bag). Thus they can keep track of two new stats:
the increase in the number of WPs, together with the increase in the number
of slung bats.
> My personal favourite: A new rule states that although the rules in the
> book refer to "he", "him", and "his", they are to be considered to refer
> to
> "she", "her", or "hers", when applicable.
Second to the tie-game item above, this is probably the least argumentative
bit in the entire list.
JtE
Steve Bielawski
From: "John Black" <bla...@comcast.net>
> They will certainly need the Instant Replay cameras "at the ready"
> (just like whether the receiver had the requisite number of feet
> touching down (dragging) in-bounds before they went out
> in the NFL)
I get the feeling that the attempt is to get rid of the more obvious
violations. For example, sometimes when a player goes towards his own
dugout, his teammates on the bench will do everything but hold him up while
he makes the catch. On the other hand, if he's going towards the opposing
dugout, he will get little to no help. I gather that the point will be to
make such situations less dissimilar.
> > If a fielder falls into the dugout or the stands after making
> > a legal catch, all baserunners will be allowed to advance
> > one base.
>
> I can see this as a means to keep runners from circling the bases
> while a fielder lies unconscious (but still holding the ball)
> in a dugout, but what if the fielder can "instantly" recover
> himself (oops, or "herself" - see below) and be back
>"on the field" in time to prevent *any* advancement?
My first thought was of a player whose motion took him (or her) over the top
of the fence, but who then went back on the counterswing. That player could
then pivot and throw the ball, but likely by the time that the ball is
thrown and caught, a speedy runner (who is also alert to the situation)
could have advanced two or more bases. Given this realization, the player
might just not go after that foul ball too much, thinking that the likely
bad outcome (the baserunner advancing two or more bases) outweighed the good
(the out). I would expect that in some situations, the fielder might decide
to make that play and take the chance that the runner advances one extra
base, in exchange for the out. Remember that if he doesn't make the catch,
the baserunner has to hold.
Upon further reflection, I suspect that this rule will be a big nothing.
You probably won't notice much difference, if any, in how the game is played
because of this rule. The situation is just too obscure, and is likely to
remain so.
> > If a game is suspended while tied after the fifth inning and is not
> > completed on the scheduled date. . . .
>
> Sounds pretty much like the present system to me.
The big difference is that, under the system that is being replaced, the
Office of the Commissioner (or earlier, the League Office) had to approve
changing the site change for the balance of the game. They would approve,
but it still had to be done as a formallity. Now, there is no such
formality; it is automaticly approved for the game to be resumed at the
opposing team's home stadium if there are no games left between those teams
at the site where the game was begun.
Again, though, it isn't that big of a deal. The situation happens, but it
is fairly rare. Most major-league fields drain pretty well, so there isn't
too likely to be a problem. And the umpires have been known to delay the
start of a game if they weren't sure that it could be completed before the
weather turned bad (e.g. game 2 of the ALDS between the Yankees and Tigers).
So really, I don't think we'll see this rule used too much.
> If they remove the rosin bag, how does the pitcher remove sweat
> from his hand?
Ask the umpire for a blow drier? Or, perhaps, for a towel?
> If the pitcher slides in the dirt (for any number of reasons)
> he now has "dirt on his hand". Who makes the judgement
> as to when that is "fully" removed?
Hmmm. Remember when umpires used to have a little hand broom, and would
wipe off home plate? (Too often these days, I see umpires just kick the
dirt with their feet. It isn't nice. Of course, others will just ignore
it, and let the groundscrew sweep it between half-innings.) I suppose that
one of the umpires (possibly a base umpire, instead of the home-plate
umpire, who is loaded down with balls) could carry a towel, to allow
pitchers to wipe off sweat or dirt.
> This sounds like something that the umpires are going to agree
> to generally work their way *way*around.
> > When there are no runners on base, the pitcher must throw
> > the ball within 12 seconds of receiving it. (Previously, it
> > was 20 seconds.) The penalty for taking too long is
> > an automatic ball.
>
> Fine idea, but I never saw an ump enforce the 20 second rule
> and certain pitchers (e.g. - Villone) would violate that rule
> on almost every pitch.
I agree. Let's enforce the rule, rather than tweak a rule that isn't being
enforced.
> I suppose the players' solution would be to have the catcher
> keep an eye on the "play clock" and if it gets to close - he suuddenly
> runs out for a "conference".
"Now catching for the Tigers--number 84--Chris Webber."
> > The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter's box
> > except forcertain game-play conditions (e.g., breaking
> > a bat, running out a foul ball). Penalty for stepping out is
> > an automatic strike.
>
> For an awful lot of batters, this would be like mandating that
> they change the way they breathe.
I believe that when the batter has one foot out of the batter's box, he is
essentially calling (or trying to call) "time out". The idea is that he
can't go that far away; he has to take one step to do his "practice swing,"
then step back into the box and be ready. They're trying to cut down on the
strolling around.
Again, this rule is quite similar to what is supposed to be the situation
now, but the current situation isn't being enforced, so MLB decided to make
the unenforced rule more strict.
> I would guess that this would also mean that the batter
> could *not* step out to dry his hands (just like the pitcher
> can't use the rosin bag).
I guess that the player should use the uniform as a towel. That's fine as
long as the uniform isn't dripping wet as well. (Yes, I have seen a game or
two where it was raining that hard.)
> Thus they can keep track of two new stats: the increase
> in the number of WPs, together with the increase
> in the number of slung bats.
And a third stat: the number of lawsuits resulting from the above.
> > My personal favourite: A new rule states that although the rules
> > in the book refer to "he", "him", and "his", they are to be
> > considered to refer to "she", "her", or "hers", when applicable.
>
> Second to the tie-game item above, this is probably the least
> argumentative bit in the entire list.
I was once the president of the ushers club at church, an all-male
organization. My vice-president made one meeting all year, due to the fact
that the company he worked for went out of business and he found himself
working across town. The next-in-line-of-succession, the treasurer,
wouldn't become president, but he would become vice-president. I
reluctantly agreed to a second year as president, but just before the
meeting, I found a copy of the by-laws, which forbade consecutive terms.
So, I introduced a resolution to ammend the by-laws. It failed,
spectacularly. One man, one who worked on the by-laws some years ago, did a
one-man filibuster; when I thought he was winding down, I would reach for
the gavel (the meeting was going long), and that motion on my part would get
him wound up for another two to five minutes. I then introduced a set of
revisions, one of which was another, different revision of the term limits.
I also had a huge laundry list of spelling and grammatical errors to
correct, as well as a few other places where I thought we might as well
amend the by-laws to reflect what we did, instead of changing our usual
behaviour to match the by-laws. As a last, and separate, revision, I
proposed changing the language of the by-laws to be less exclusively
masculine. The final draft included no female pronouns, just
non-gender-specific language that didn't seem so stilted and dated. The guy
who objected to getting rid of the term limits was even willing to make the
motion that the group accept the new term limits revision, as well as the
other proposed revisions, but not the one on the less-masculine language.
That became his new crusade. That one passed, anyway. But the point is,
these revisions to be more gender-inclusive can be more devisive than you
might think.
Gmrst...@cs.com
So, Kenny
> Rogers may be
> the last player to receive a warning about having a foreign
> substance on his
> hand. (Of course, that substance on his hand may have been dry, and
> therefore might not have gotten onto the ball. It might have been
> more of a
> psychological thing--let the other team think you're doing
> something, and
> when you wash it off and still blow them away, they feel really
> defeated.)
I believe umpires still have the discretion to issue a warning if he feels the infaction was unintentional.
-chris
Tanvir R. Shaikh
> except forcertain game-play conditions (e.g., breaking
> a bat, running out a foul ball). Penalty for stepping out is
> an automatic strike.
Is there a penalty for erasing the batter's box?