Trembley Suspended

[Nigel Tufnel]

Yeah, this section...

Rule 7.05(g) Comment: In certain circumstances it is impossible to award a runner two bases. Example: Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stand.

APPROVED RULING: Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base.

The term “when the wild throw was made” means when the throw actually left the player’s hand and not when the thrown ball hit the ground, passes a receiving fielder or goes out of play into the stands.

The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.

...at first glance kind of reads like everything in it applies to the certain circumstances where it's impossible to award a runner two bases.

But I don't think that's actually the case. Because there's a defintion for the term "when the wild throw was made" in the above section, but that term doesn't actually appear anywhere else above - it's in the main 7.05(g) rule. I think everything in the highlighted text is just an explanation of all parts of the rule, and it should have been formatted like this:

Rule 7.05(g) Comment:

• In certain circumstances it is impossible to award a runner two bases.
  

Example:

Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stand.

APPROVED RULING:

Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base.

• The term “when the wild throw was made” means when the throw actually left the player’s hand and not when the thrown ball hit the ground, passes a receiving fielder or goes out of play into the stands.
  

• The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.
  

So I think I agree with Russ - I don't really know, though. It may be time to get the OH lawyers involved!

[ccbird]

Wow, misinformation posted by a blogger on the internet... who woulda thunk it?

That guy made the same mistake our pal Russ did: he's going down into the weeds of a special case, and bringing it up front to rewrite the entire rule. If the position of the batter on the basebaths was a general overriding factor, they would have mentioned that up front and not had the very first sentence of the rule read like it does. The first sentence of part (g) would have stated that what happens is dependent on where the batter is. It doesn't say that because it's not generally true. It only matters when get into a weird special case.

Russ is putting up a good fight and certainly make me think here but this point you make is my thoughts exactly.

[NittanyOsFan]

Actually I think Russ is right after rereading the rule a couple of times. Each rule in the rulebook has a single comment block containing multiple clarifications on the rule that are separated by paragraphs breaks. Most of my initial confusion came from the poor layout of the rule.

So the first comment on rule 7.05(g) is: In certain circumstances it is impossible to award a runner two bases. Example: Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stand.

After that there is an APPROVED RULING line which applies to the previous comment: APPROVED RULING: Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base.

There's then a paragraph break, so the next paragraph is the second comment applying to the main rule 7.05(g) not the above APPROVED RULING.

The next comment is The term “when the wild throw was made” means when the throw actually left the player’s hand and not when the thrown ball hit the ground, passes a receiving fielder or goes out of play into the stands. which defines when the wild throw was made from the main 7.05(g) rule.

After that you get the comment The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call. which clarifies the statement in all other cases the umpire shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the wild throw was made from the main 7.05(g) rule.

Each comment paragraph is a comment on the main 7.05(g) rule except for the APPROVED RULING in the comment section which is a ruling on the comment. MLB should really think about creating a better format to show what sections modify each rule / comment / APPROVED RULING.

So what is comes down to is whether Scott had reached first when the errant throw was made.

Edit: Nigel's post makes it a lot clearer than what I wrote.

[RShack]

I give up ;-)

[TonySoprano]

Saw this coming.

I wonder what Bud Selig will have to say about this

Trembley also admitted that he spent the rest of the game following his ejection in the vicinity of the dugout, offering the occasional instruction to his coaching staff.

"I'll tell you the honest-goodness truth. I stood behind the King County sheriff, right behind him in the dugout, and he let me watch it," Trembley said. "And every once in a while he screened it for me like a pick in basketball so nobody could see me. I didn't have my hat on or my glasses on. … You laugh, you think I'm funny. You have no idea what I've gone through. No idea. I can't talk for a week now, my hat is a mess. That's OK. We won the game. We got some big hits when it counted and the guys played well. "

source - Baltimore Sun

[ledzepp8]

I think you're reading the ruling as part of the special case when it really is it's own separate statement. Imagine a bullet in front of every sentence past the Approved ruling sentence.

Rule 7.05(g) Comment: In certain circumstances it is impossible to award a runner two bases. Example: Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stand.

APPROVED RULING: Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base.

The term “when the wild throw was made” means when the throw actually left the player’s hand and not when the thrown ball hit the ground, passes a receiving fielder or goes out of play into the stands.

The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.

If an unusual play arises where a first throw by an infielder goes into stands or dugout but the batter did not become a runner (such as catcher throwing ball into stands in attempt to get runner from third trying to score on passed ball or wild pitch) award of two bases shall be from the position of the runners at the time of the throw. (For the purpose of Rule 7.05 (g) a catcher is considered an infielder.)

PLAY. Runner on first base, batter hits a ball to the shortstop, who throws to second base too late to get runner at second, and second baseman throws toward first base after batter has crossed first base.

Again I don't think that is accurate. 7.05 (g) is one part of the rule, there is then an approved ruling for that scenario. I think what you bolded has to be apart of that approved ruling because there is nothing to establish a new thought until 7.05 (h) and that is after that bolded section.

[ccbird]

Yeah, this section...

...at first glance kind of reads like everything in it applies to the certain circumstances where it's impossible to award a runner two bases.

But I don't think that's actually the case. Because there's a defintion for the term "when the wild throw was made" in the above section, but that term doesn't actually appear anywhere else above - it's in the main 7.05(g) rule. I think everything in the highlighted text is just an explanation of all parts of the rule, and it should have been formatted like this:

So I think I agree with Russ - I don't really know, though. It may be time to get the OH lawyers involved!

Yeah, well done. I'm starting to come around now and think Russ is probably right here in that the following part indeed does fall under the main rule and not part of the outlined circumstance though I'm very much wishy washy at this point. I really want to hear what MLB says if they get back to Russ.

The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call

That rule should certainly be looked at though. As I pointed out in my scenario earlier the defense could be rewarded by throwing a ball out of play if say a batter is hurt coming out of the box and the runner on first is about to round 3rd when a throw from the OF wall is being made. Conceivably, if the OFer knew the batter was hurt and not to 1st he could just throw the ball up into the stands and the runner on 1st wouldn't score. As I said it seems there needs to be some umpire discresion in there.

[Skeletor]

Again I don't think that is accurate. 7.05 (g) is one part of the rule, there is then an approved ruling for that scenario. I think what you bolded has to be apart of that approved ruling because there is nothing to establish a new thought until 7.05 (h) and that is after that bolded section.

I disagree. The comments section is pertaining to the entire 7.05 (g) rule. If you look closely you'll see paragraph breaks between thoughts. I give up. I've certainly argued my case. Somebody will have to call the MLB office, I suppose.

[ledzepp8]

Look the bottomline is this: The bolded part that Russ is focused on is apart of an approved ruling to a particular special case of the rule, 7.05 (g). The bolded section is clearly a part of the approved ruling because there is nothing to differentiate until the next section of the rule with his section (h).

That being said, it's completely irrelevant to the situation because the bolded is apart of an approved ruling for a special case, 7.05 (g), which never even happened. It didn't happen during the play, so there is no need to even address it.

[El Gordo]

Obviously you all need a lawyer trained in statutory construction to figure this out. But most of us are tired of being maligned around here, so you're on your own.

What a cop out. this is one time when I would have welcomed your opinion.:mwahaha:

[ledzepp8]

Yeah, this section...

...at first glance kind of reads like everything in it applies to the certain circumstances where it's impossible to award a runner two bases.

But I don't think that's actually the case. Because there's a defintion for the term "when the wild throw was made" in the above section, but that term doesn't actually appear anywhere else above - it's in the main 7.05(g) rule. I think everything in the highlighted text is just an explanation of all parts of the rule, and it should have been formatted like this:

So I think I agree with Russ - I don't really know, though. It may be time to get the OH lawyers involved!

"When the wild throw was made" appears in the first approved ruling for (g) and it is in regards to an infielder making the throw. So either way it's irrelevant to this situation.

[Nigel Tufnel]

"When the wild throw was made" appears in the first approved ruling for (g) and it is in regards to an infielder making the throw. So either way it's irrelevant to this situation.

But then why is it defined, if it's irrelevant?

[ledzepp8]

But then why is it defined, if it's irrelevant?

It's not irrelevant to the rule and certain circumstances that could happen when applying the rule. It's irrelevant to what happened on the field. An infielder didn't make the throw, an outfielder did.

[Skeletor]

Look the bottomline is this: The bolded part that Russ is focused on is apart of an approved ruling to a particular special case of the rule, 7.05 (g). The bolded section is clearly a part of the approved ruling because there is nothing to differentiate until the next section of the rule with his section (h).

That being said, it's completely irrelevant to the situation because the bolded is apart of an approved ruling for a special case, 7.05 (g), which never even happened. It didn't happen during the play, so there is no need to even address it.

It doesn't even make sense if you read it as the approved ruling for the example given. The approved ruling clearly specifies what bases the runner and batter are entitled to. They get second and third. The following sentences have nothing to do with this special case and are referring back to the rule as independent comments.

[Nigel Tufnel]

It's not irrelevant to the rule and certain circumstances that could happen when applying the rule. It's irrelevant to what happened on the field. An infielder didn't make the throw, an outfielder did.

OK, but you were saying that Russ's bolded part only applied to the special case. But now you're saying that the definition, which is right next to the bolded part, doesn't apply to that special case. That's exactly what makes me think that the 7.05(g) comments don't apply only the the special case, and apply to the entire 7.05(g) rule.