Baseball Rules Question (Forfeited Games)

The Game Room
1

It’s been a long, long day for the Knights and the Mammoths. For twenty innings, the two teams have been fighting tooth and nail. Over the last eleven innings, neither team has been able to squeeze a run across the plate to break the deadlock. Managers have used every available trick to gain the advantage. The Mammoths manager has not only used every bench player he has, but, in trying to gain the advantage several times in righty/lefty pitching situations, has exhausted every pitcher in the bullpen. He only has nine players left now – the nine currently in the game. It’s with these players that he will win or lose. There is no one else.

Fortunately, it may soon be over. It’s the bottom of the 21st and the Mammoths have managed to load the bases with no one out. It looks like there is a good chance they’ll actually be able to score and end the game. Up to the plate comes Andy Argumentative. The Knights pitcher works him to a full count. The next pitch just cuts the corner and the umpire calls Andy out. Andy, clearly upset, doesn’t agree and lets the umpire know. Vociferously. The umpire warns him, but Andy is so worked up and so wants the game to end (with a victory, of course) that he continues arguing and kicks dirt on the umpire. Eventually he gets careless and accidentally kicks the umpire himself in the process. Having had enough, the umpire gives Andy the heave-ho.

Kris King, the Knights manager, immediately comes out of the dugout and tells the umpire that he has to call a forfeit – as the Mammoths now only have eight players in the game, and there is no one left on the roster to replace Andy. He cites rule 7.03 (b).

The Mammoths, he argues, are unable to put nine players on the field. Hence the game should be forfeit.

Max Maximus, the Mammoths manager comes out to dispute the point. He says that he’s not required to put nine players on the field, at least not until the start of the next inning, or until Andy’s spot in the lineup comes up again*. As proof, he points out that, were it only the fifth inning, he wouldn’t be required to name a replacement for Andy until the next inning. So too, here, he shouldn’t have to name a replacement (and forfeit) until he’s required to.

The umpire ponders, considering both arguments. Which one is right?

Zev Steinhardt

  • Which it can’t anyway – the game or inning will end before Andy’s spot comes up again

(Note: This is not comparable to an injury situation. Let’s say Andy broke his foot on that last strike. Andy is still, technically, in the game, even if he can’t physically play and the manager would not have to replace him until the next inning. In this case, however, Andy is immediately out of the game.)

2

I’d say that the team is “unable to place nine players on the field” as soon as Andy is ejected, therefore the game is forfeit at that point.

The “fifth-inning argument” doesn’t hold water; in that example, the manager is not required to name the specific ‘replacement player’ at that moment, but it is established that the player will come from the pool of players left on the bench. In this example, there are no players in that pool, so they’re out of luck.

3

Moderator Action

Moving thread from GQ to the Game Room.

4

Perhaps. But it could also be argued that, as the team at bat, the Mammoths manager is not required to put nine players on the field at the moment - he only has to have the required players (the one at bat, the ones on the bases and, it could be argued, the one in the on-deck circle) for play at the moment. The only time a team is required to actually “place nine players upon the field” is when the other team is at bat.

Zev Steinhardt

5

The key word here is “…UNABLE to place nine players on the field”. As soon as Andy gets thrown out they are unable to place nine players on the field even if they wanted to, and should therefore lose the game. That’s my take on it, anyway.

6

Bear with my ignorance; I’m not a baseball fan.

When a player is taken out of the game, is it irrevocable? Or can the manager tell one of the players who he sat down in the early innings that he’s back in the line-up to replace Andy? It doesn’t matter if the player has negligible batting ability; all he needs to do is fill a spot on the sheet.

7

One a player is removed from the game, they can’t reenter. There may be exceptions to this rule at lower levels of the game, but certainly not at the major league level. The 2002 All Star game ended in a tie because of running out of available pitchers. Even if MLB had made an on the spot rules change, it wouldn’t have been a good idea to have a pitcher warm up again, and then reenter an exhibition game.

8

Just wanted to note that this is an uncommonly tolerant umpire. Because arguing ball/strike calls is not allowed (Rule 9.02a), Andy should expect to be tossed when - perhaps before - he takes to dirt-kicking.

By actually kicking the ump, he’s made a fine and even suspension likely.

9

IMHO the game is not over until the team has to take the field. I am curious what to do if the guys spot comes up in the lineup again.

I think you have to wait until they have to field a team. After all what if the other teams pitcher has a heart attack and THEY cant field 9 guys?

If i were the manager of the team in the field id call for intentional walks until the guy who isnt in the lineup comes up and (i think) an automatic out is given for batting out of order.

10

The game ended in a tie because the commish said so. THEY made an on the spot rule change. The team had 9 players in the line-up and a position player should have pitched.

11

I’m not sure that would work: If the game isn’t over as soon as the player is ejected, then it is as soon as the Mammoths score. Which they would, on a walk, because we’ve already established that the bases are loaded.

12

Well, in this scenario, that can’t happen. Either the winning run will score (ending the game) or three outs will occur (ending the inning whereupon everyone agrees the game has to be forfeit).

In this scenario, it would not work. The bases are loaded. As soon as the first walk is issued, the winning run scores and the game is over.

Zev Steinhardt

(Edit: ninja’d by Chronos :slight_smile: )

13

Yes, I know. But I’d like to think that the umpire is aware that throwing a player out under these circumstances would mean that the Mammoths cannot field a team and, given that, make sure that the player truly deserved to be kicked out by any measure. That’s why I wrote it that way. :slight_smile:

Zev Steinhardt

14

Oh i forgot its the bottom of the inning.

Yup. Play on. Like i said, the other team could some how get down to 8 players. So on we go.

15

Game over. What would happen if, instead of the batter, the man on deck kicked the ump during the argument? Surely you couldn’t just skip him in the lineup.

16

Except that there is rule 4.01©, which says, in part:
“As a courtesy, potential substitute players should also be listed, but the failure to list a potential substitute player shall not make such potential substitute player ineligible to enter the game.”
Nothing stops the manager from putting a fan in a uniform as a substitute - or, for that matter, since the manager is supposed to be in uniform anyway, from putting himself in.

17

That’s not the same case. In this case, Andy’s at bat is over (he struck out). His turn in the batting order does not need to be skipped. If it were the on-deck batter, then yes, I think everyone would agree the game is over.

The Wolf

18

I find something else interesting about this question. The rules state that the umpires shall rule on any matter not covered in the rules.

Suppose the umpire calls a forfeit. The team appeals and the ruling is over turned. The teams are ordered to resume the game from that point. But before that happens the Mammoths have made some trades and called up other players from the minors.

The Knights mange to get a triple play to get out of the inning. The Mammoths take the filed using a new player (This I know is allowed based on rain resumptions.)

But the Knights, too, have made some additions and one of them is a trade for Andy Argumentative. The Knights send him up to pinch hit.

I think allowed, but that, too is not covered except that in general newly acquired players are allowed to compete. This is even true for players who did play for the other team, but I’m not sure if the ejection changes things.

19

No, I don’t think that would be allowed.

The point of the rule is that the manager should not be stuck because he accidentally forgot to name a roster player as a substitute on the lineup card. However, I think everyone agrees that only players on the roster can be in the game. Otherwise, why wouldn’t teams have a “taxi squad” of a few players who travel with the team and are not on the roster?

The rule here, however, doesn’t mean that a manager has a potentially unlimited number of substitutes available. In order to play in a game, you have to be on the roster. You can’t just add a player to the roster mid-game (barring a case of a delayed/suspended game).

Zev Steinhardt

20

Except that neither the fan not the manager are on the 25 man roster, and can’t be added mid game (except as I noted above if the same is resumed later).