Rule Changes

[innersanctum]

I believe there is a flaw in the hit batters rule as was evident last night in the Cardinals. While Ponson didn't intentionally hit Anderson and Ozuna, he still did it and gave cause for retaliation. So the Cardinals, like so many other teams the Sox have played this year, get two licks in on our batters and we are required to sit back and take it because they get two hit batters in before we can do anything about it. The rule needs to change to where the team that hits a batter twice in a game must be issued the warning, not both benches. It's a rule that I understand is there to keep the game under control but how many times do our guys need to be hit in games?

 

Has there ever been a time this year that our pitching staff has caused a warning to be issued to both benches on their own (in other words, has any pitcher plunked two batters from the opposing team before they could retaliate?)

 

MLB needs to revisit this rule and instead of penalizing both teams for the actions of one team, they need to penalize the teams that cause the warnings to be issued. The big picture, Ponson hits two batters and could have stayed in the game (at least LaRussa had enough common sense to pull him after he hit Ozuna). Riske hits one batter, gets ejected along with Ozzie! How is that rule fair to both teams?

[Wedge]

I agree entirely with your argument (except I think the first HBP by Ponson was intentional). If pitcher A beans team B twice without team B retaliating, then either warn pitcher A's team only, eject pitcher A, or do nothing until team B can retaliate. Otherwise, this is just stupid. Ump's never seem to manage this situation right and it pisses me off.

[YASNY]

They need to scrap this warning stuff altogether. The game got along fine for 100 years without it.

[Flash Tizzle]

Current rules governing hits batsmen essentially give one ballclub several open opportunties to hit an opposing team.

 

I agree, it's ridiculous. How fair is it for one ballclub, whether it's Texas or St. Louis, to strike two players -- and then proceed to warn the team which was hit? If the umpires thought enough of Ponson's two hitbatsman to issue warnings, why not eject him?

 

Hell, even when umpires take initiative and eject pitchers before warnings are issued they usually f*** it up. Think back to Buehrle and Baltimore, when our hitters were targets for several games and nothing happened until Mark throws inside.

[Steff]

Current rules governing hits batsmen essentially give one ballclub several open opportunties to hit an opposing team.

 

I agree, it's ridiculous. How fair is it for one ballclub, whether it's Texas or St. Louis, to strike two players -- and then proceed to warn the team which was hit? If the umpires thought enough of Ponson's two hitbatsman to issue warnings, why not eject him?

 

Hell, even when umpires take initiative and eject pitchers before warnings are issued they usually f*** it up. Think back to Buehrle and Baltimore, when our hitters were targets for several games and nothing happened until Mark throws inside.

 

 

The warning was towards the Sox not to retaliate, no? I watched the replay on Tivo a dozen times this morning. The hits weren't intentional, IMO.

[Flash Tizzle]

The warning was towards the Sox not to retaliate, no? I watched the replay on Tivo a dozen times this morning. The hits weren't intentional, IMO.

You can always make the argument in your favor.

 

For example: when a batter is hit with a 0-2 count in a close game, you'll hear people say -- "Well, he had him 0-2. Why would he put runners on?" That's exactly the spot you wouldn't expect someone to be hit, thus, it's really the perfect situation.

 

With bases loaded, 0 outs, and Cardinals already losing big, it's not entirely out of the question for Ponson to hit our players. What, a run scores and now instead of a 14 run lead it's a 15 run lead? No difference to anyone. His can always fling his arms up in the air and look surprised. I'm not falling for it. These are major league pitchers, responsible for throwing over 90 mph in targets 60 ft away. He hit Anderson in the back and missed his target by a good foot. It wasn't just a grazed inside fastball, or a breaking ball that slipped out of his hand. Hell of a coincidence to occur twice if it were unintentional.

Edited June 21, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[Wedge]

The warning was towards the Sox not to retaliate, no? I watched the replay on Tivo a dozen times this morning. The hits weren't intentional, IMO.

 

Someone in the game thread said he knew LaRussa's style pretty well. In the wrong end of blow-outs, he usually orders a beaning. Thus, I think a lot of us suspect the first HBP was intentional, but the second probably was not.

[Steff]

Sidney said Tony did not order a beaning, nor were they intentional.

[tonyho7476]

It seems to make sense to me that the batters were hit, because Ozzie was not putting all his subs in. I thought that last night sitting in the stands, and I still think that today, even after seeing the replay.

 

And I agree, this whole warning thing is bulls***. It needs to go away.

[Dick Allen]

I've always thought of LaRussa as a punk. I never liked him and was glad when Hawk canned him in 1986. He didn't, however, order any hit batters last night. In fact, he was pissed about it. You could tell from the post game show that he thought it was intentional. Ponson told him it wasn't, so he was standing behind that, but his stance was a little wobbly. I think his quote was, "It looked like crap."

[Flash Tizzle]

Sidney said Tony did not order a beaning, nor were they intentional.

Steff, at the risk of sounding insensitive here, I'll say this -- he probably wouldn't tell you the truth.

[Steff]

Steff, at the risk of sounding insensitive here, I'll say this -- he probably wouldn't tell you the truth.

 

He's never been shy about telling me things previously so I doubt he'd go out of his way to lie (I didn't bring it up).

 

Then of course there's the common sence factor...

[Flash Tizzle]

Then of course there's the common sence factor...

Yes, but as I said, what you perceive as common sense can just as easily be the best situation to hit another player.

[Steff]

Yes, but as I said, what you perceive as common sense can just as easily be the best situation to hit another player.

 

 

 

You think it was intentional.. I got it.

[G&T]

Sidney said Tony did not order a beaning, nor were they intentional.

 

Well if he said it was intentional he would probably be fined or suspended. So I doubt he'd say he did it.

[Steff]

Well if he said it was intentional he would probably be fined or suspended. So I doubt he'd say he did it.

 

 

Probably, if he was saying it to someone who gave a s***.

[Flash Tizzle]

Probably, if he was saying it to someone who gave a s***.

I thought you were a big deal? People know you, right?

[Steff]

I thought you were a big deal? People know you, right?

 

 

If by "big deal" you mean someone who would get him in some sort of trouble, then you would be incorrect.

 

Not that I would do that anyway. As YASNY said previously, beaning is part of baseball. It's been going on for 100 years. Crying about it is stupid. IMO.

[CanOfCorn]

How about this for a rule change...after the warning...next batter hit, both pitchers and both managers get ejected?

 

So, in last nights case, when Riske hit Duncan after the warning, Riske, Guillen, LaRussa and whoever was in the game for the Cards are all tossed. OK, that's a dumb idea, but it evens it out a little.

[WCSox]

I watched the replay on Tivo a dozen times this morning. The hits weren't intentional, IMO.

 

Ponson's body language clearly showed that the hits were not intentional. Either that, or he's a hell of an actor.

[dmbjeff]

There shouldn't have even been warnings issues since it was clear and obvious Ponson wasn't trying to hit our guys. With the bases loaded and no outs and down 10+ runs, you do what you can to get out of the inning, not hit guys and add more to the deficit. MLB umpires are retarded.

[Guillen'sGuy]

Intentional or not, two of our players were hit. In my mind, that means one of their players must get hit. That's just the way the game is meant to be played.

[VAfan]

Is there really a formal rule about this? It all seem discretionary to me, on the part of the umps and on the part of the league office that doles out punishment.

 

I totally agree that these things are not handled well.

 

There's not an easy solution, but a one-free-plunk norm might at least reduce the unequal treatment the Sox have suffered lately. In that case, Padilla would have been summarily ejected after hitting AJ a second time. And the Sox would have had a free shot to retaliate as well. Similarly, Ponson would have been gone once he hit Ozuna, and Riske could have plunked Duncan without penalty.

 

Now, I suppose there may be incidents where a good pitcher facing teams with guys who hang all over the plate might unintentionally ding two guys. So even under this norm, the ump should use discretion. How wild is the pitcher to other hitters? Was the batter leaning in? Did he just barely get nicked, or was he plunked in the back? And there may also be incidents where even one beaning warrants ejection, as when the Rocket quite plainly went headhunting against Mike Piazza.

 

So umps, just do a better job. Toss the instigators, and allow teams to get their share of justice. Otherwise, the tension will just build into something worse.

[RME JICO]

Here is the "official" rule:

 

8.02 - The pitcher shall not --

(d) Intentionally Pitch at the Batter. If, in the umpire's judgment, such a violation occurs, the umpire may elect either to:

 

1. Expel the pitcher, or the manager and the pitcher, from the game, or

 

2. 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.

 

Rule 8.02(d) Comment: To pitch at a batter’s head is unsportsmanlike and highly dangerous. It should be—and is—condemned by everybody. Umpires should act without hesitation in enforcement of this rule.

[whitesoxin']

You think it was intentional.. I got it.

If just curious, do you really think that it was not intentional? The Cardinals were down by 13 and had no chance of coming back. A professional pitcher doesn't let two fastballs sail right into a hitters back and shoulder back to back. Now I know you are friends with Ponson or something like that, but how was that not intentional?

 

Edit: I didn't see your Tivo post earlier. I also watched it on Tivo last night when I got home so I saw both beanings multiple times. IMO it looked like he was faking. If I was Sidney I would be pissed off too, going from a great starter to a mop up duty on the Cardinals.

Edited June 21, 2006 by whitesoxin'