<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>This Astros-Angels controversy could potentially have a huge impact on who gets the No. 1 pick in the 2014 draft.</p>— Ben Badler (@BenBadler) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenBadler/status/332699152851013633">May 10, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
yeah, but i'm saying, based on my logic, seems like a reason to reject the protest. also, if the angels win, wouldn't the protest still be reviewed since it's filed? it wouldn't be fair that they get a freeroll today just because the umps effed up. should work both ways.
announcers just said they can drop the protest. that doesn't seem fair. stros should file one against themselves.
Nope. they can withdraw the protest after a win. The protest would be similar to a suspended game. If a suspended game is resumed, a player not on the roster in the original game, can play once it is resumed on a later day.
right...that's what i'm saying. that's a reason why it's senseless to uphold the protest. it's not like wesley wright would be forced to pitch to start the replayed game. whatever disadvantage the angels thought they were playing the game under would not be rectified by replaying it.
The point that Sciosia would make is that we do not know what would have happened had Wright faced the pinch hitter and if the umpires screwed up the rule then that is unfair to them. While your point is valid, it is the only real way to give the Angels a fair shake. I would think it would make things more interesting if a manager was forced to withdraw the protest prior to the game being over and if it isn't withdrawn, the protest would be reviewed and appropriate ruling applied. That being said, it is rare when a protest is even made. Generally, while umpires make a lot of bad judgement calls, they are usually pretty good on knowing the rules.
It appears Porter doesn't know the rule and if this is the case, then the umpires don't either: "Porter says his understanding of rule is he could remove the pitcher if the hitter he was going to face is removed for pinch hitter. " As I understand it, the purpose of the "pitcher must face at least one hitter rule" is to avoid the constant back and forth switching. Theoretically, Scoscia could have brought in a left handed hitter, then Porter could have gone to a lefty, then Scoscia could have changed to a righty as could Porter. I am truly curious to see why the umpires agreed with Porter.
Cut that fat @ss Ambriz loser!! I'm sick of seeing him blow leads/games. He shouldn't have even made the team out of spring training. I don't know wtf Porter was thinking leaving him in to load the bases and give up the game. They had this game won and Ambriz/Porter blew it. We need a legitamate 8th inning guy, hell a 7th inning guy too. Add in a real Pitching coach and maybe this team could actually compete a little better. Pitching is our Achilles Heel!
Porter claims this: “My understanding of the rule, and I was fortunate enough last year to sit in with [Nationals manager] Davey [Johnson when they changed the rule of a pitcher having to face a batter. But at the same time, if you have to pinch-hit for that batter, you now have the right to bring in another pitcher. Technically, Wesley came in to pitch the batter that was scheduled to hit [Shuck] but he pinch-hit for the batter that was scheduled to hit. Which, from my understanding of the rule, you can bring in another pitcher to face the pinch-hitter.” So, either Porter and the umpires don't know the rule or Scocsia doesn't. Someone is going to look foolish after this is sorted out.
I've swear I've seen this happen before with the Braves. Bobby Cox and the other manager went back and forth swapping hitters and pitchers. Could be misremembering exactly how it went down. But Buster Onley and the guys on CSNH seemed pretty positive the rule requires you to face a batter.
It seems like if the rule had been changed, lefty relievers would be relatively useless and you'd see a lot more times where a lefty reliever was called in, a righty was subbed, and then a righty reliever was called in. The fact that the lefty relievers tend to stay in to face a righty seems to suggest that the pitchers still have to face a batter.
Assuming there isn't some loophole that has yet to be mentioned, should we feel embarrassed that our manager doesn't know the rule?
Sounds like it confused the umps a little as well so I'm not too worried about it. I've been really happy with Bo Porter as a manager as well. I just hope he can keep his positive attitude through the loses.
The rule change is that if a relief pitcher STARTS an inning and there is a pinch hitter sent up then the pitcher can be replaced without facing a better. That was not the case here. Porter and the umpires were wrong.
Here is the rule from MLB Wright should have pitched.Moot now as the Angels won and most likely retracted the protest.
I hate the idea of switching pitchers and batters before either of them have played... If anything MLB has to clarify that if there is a change in a batting lineup, the pitching staff has the right to adjust to the change...making it fair for the pitching team. And same visa versa, if a pitching change has been made, the batting team has the right to change its batter... I find it truly ridiculous that a replacement batter doesnt even have to swing the bat and can be changed if pitching is changed, but that pitcher's cant...its not fair and MLB should address this at the next rule book committee..
