Trying to run off Kenny Rogers' cheating ass too.

An automatic strike will be assessed each time a batter violates the rule requiring they keep one foot in the batter's box throughout his at-bat, except for certain game-play conditions -- during which he is still not allowed to leave the dirt area surrounding the plate.

Hallelujah.

A MLB representative confirmed that the time saved would be sold, equally, to Chik-fil-A, AFLAC and local car dealers. The sum of these moves is expected to lengthen games by 48 minutes but net MLB 3.9 million dollars per year.

Has the umps' union agreed to enforce any of this stuff?

Gender objectivity: The rulebook now includes the disclaimer that references "to 'he,' 'him' or 'his' shall be deemed to be a reference to 'she,' 'her' or 'hers'" where applicable.

"Where applicable" ...so nowhere?

There is at least one female umpire in the minors.

Has the umps' union agreed to enforce any of this stuff?

I don't know whether the union has been the culprit or not, but it is the case that up to now MLB's enforcement of its existing elapsed-time-between-pitches limitations has been so -- hell, "sporadic" isn't the word, it's more like "nonexistent" -- that pleased as I am to see such legislation, I'll believe it when I see it empirically enacted.

I don't know whether the union has been the culprit or not, but it is the case that up to now MLB's enforcement of its existing elapsed-time-between-pitches limitations has been so -- hell, "sporadic" isn't the word, it's more like "nonexistent" -- that pleased as I am to see such legislation, I'll believe it when I see it empirically enacted.

Amen; it doesn't matter what the rules are if they aren't consistently enforced. Baseball has long had the rule that required pitchers to deliver a pitch within 20 seconds with no one on base. As Steve pointed out it has been enforced seldom, if it all. If the revised rule is enforced a positive side effect might be less air time for talking heads such as Tim McCarver.

The tie game being resumed rather than replayed is very interesting,
and altering the way that defensive interference is called on steals will probably throw off all of Dan Sym's Zip projections. I bet that the steal scoring change has its roots in rotisserie baseball.

Maybe they could program an amplified whoopee cushion to go off at the 21 second mark. It wouldn't be much worse than most of the music they play. In any case, the enforcement has to be like that of a delay of game penalty in the NFL, one that's automatically controlled by the clock, with no subjective factor involved.

and altering the way that defensive interference is called on steals will probably throw off all of Dan Sym's Zip projections.

Defensive indifference, rather.

I think the impact of that change will be minimal, frankly. There were no more than one or two such questionable DI calls in the 70+ games I scored last year.

-- MWE

good thing that Sutcliffe retired a few years ago--that sumbitch took 25 seconds just to finish his wind-up

Potentially most consequential is the manner in which games that end in a tie, due to weather or other uncontrollable elements, will be resolved. While previously such games were considered official and replayed in their entirety from the beginning, hence they will be "suspended" and resumed at the point of stoppage.

Really? I seem to recall some suspended games being made up from the point of the delay when tied in the later innings.

When's the last time that there was an "official" tie?

Maybe they could program an amplified whoopee cushion to go off at the 21 second mark.

I had thought that some team exec (Bill Veeck?) put a 20-second timer on a scoreboard that he was going to use, but the league office told him not to use it. I can't find any reference to it, though. Does anyone else remember this?

I had thought that some team exec (Bill Veeck?) put a 20-second timer on a scoreboard that he was going to use, but the league office told him not to use it. I can't find any reference to it, though. Does anyone else remember this?

I believe it was Charley Finley, but I can't find a reference either

I had thought that some team exec (Bill Veeck?) put a 20-second timer on a scoreboard that he was going to use, but the league office told him not to use it. I can't find any reference to it, though. Does anyone else remember this?

This was before my time, but Rich Lindberg described it in his book "Stuck on the Sox". IIRC, Bill Veeck installed a "pitch-o-meter" (basically a big stopwatch) onto the Old Comiskey scoreboard and timed pitchers between pitches.

According to Lindberg, it wasn't the league office that told him to stop doing it, but umpires who didn't like to be told how to do their job. They tried to use it to time runners to first, but then just dropped the idea and removed the clock.

no wonder I couldn't find a reference

12 seconds from what? The previous pitch? If so, does this only apply after the first pitch of an at bat?

I had thought that some team exec (Bill Veeck?) put a 20-second timer on a scoreboard that he was going to use, but the league office told him not to use it. I can't find any reference to it, though. Does anyone else remember this?

I think Bill James discussed Charlie Finley doing this in the 1986 Baseball Abstract, in the article on the Royals.

12 seconds from what?

The time he gets the ball in his glove, I think.

Really? I seem to recall some suspended games being made up from the point of the delay when tied in the later innings.

The Pine Tar game is the only game I can think of.

Great to see that tie rule changed. It never made any sense to me.

And, to #13, like Alex Gordon's #1 Fan said, I can't think of any either, other than the Pine Tar game.

And fans weary of hearing "defensive indifference" on stolen-base attempts will be heartened to learn that the scorer must now base that call on all game circumstances, not merely on whether someone covered the base or the catcher got off a throw.

Wow, that never happens, as Mike notes. The vast majority of scorers already take the game situation into account. I suppose they were merely formalizing what scorers were doing.

Like scoring an error "when no one touched the ball", I just hope it will shut up some fans that sit near me.

The 12 seconds are supposed to start from the time the pitcher has the ball and is ready to pitch AND the batter is ready in the batter's box.

The old rule on suspended games had them in cases of games stopped by darkness or power failure. They were also suspended if the visitors went ahead in the top half of an inning and the home team didn't get a chance to bat. Also, if a game was delayed by rain after 1 am, the game was suspended and completed the next day.

The Pine Tar game is the only game I can think of.

I seem to recall a Giants game that was suspended and made up the next day from the point of delay a couple of years ago. IIRC, it was late in the season and a meaningful game.

Great to see that tie rule changed. It never made any sense to me.

Replaying a game from the start has to be preferable to having all roster moves made between the suspension and resumption effectively happen mid-game, as under 4.12(d). What an ugly, messy, inelegant rule.

Ah, nice: The Nomar Rule, The Trachsel Rule, and The Rogers Rule

Batter's box presence: Conversely, an automatic strike will be assessed each time a batter violates the rule requiring they keep one foot in the batter's box throughout his at-bat, except for certain game-play conditions -- during which he is still not allowed to leave the dirt area surrounding the plate.

I would love to see this one enforced. Let's see if they do it. I mean, it would take, what, two games of the umpires calling balls on the Trachsel pitchers and strikes on the Nomar hitters to let the players know that they were serious about it? You'd might have a goofy first couple of games, but the players would get in line pretty quickly if the umps enforce the rules.

The 20 and 12 second rules will be enforced by a rather brusque unicorn, who will march out and prod offending batters.

Mike Veeck had such a clock installed at the park for St Paul Saints games. It lasted for about two weeks. Good idea, but not really in keeping with the whole lyrical, Walt Whitman aesthetic of the game. This is something that Umpires have to enforce if it's going to change. Until they do, it's just not going to happen no matter what the rules say.

Looks like the Section 4 of the Rules has already been updated. Look at the hack editing job in 4.12(6).

I seem to recall a Giants game that was suspended and made up the next day from the point of delay a couple of years ago. IIRC, it was late in the season and a meaningful game.

What was the cause of the suspension? Couldn't have been rain, and SF hasn't played any late-season meaningful games in a couple of years.

Sure you're not thinking of the Giants-Braves rainout game from 2002? That was a classic example of the rainout-replay rule. To the retrosheet.... mmm, that Giants-Braves example was cancelled in the 10th inning of a tie game. Late in season, meaningful game. Link

Replaying a game from the start has to be preferable to having all roster moves made between the suspension and resumption effectively happen mid-game, as under 4.12(d). What an ugly, messy, inelegant rule.

Bob T just pointed out that there were many 4.12 scenarios where, in adverse conditions, suspension and resumption at a later date is accepted. It was invoked numerous times in the Wrigley Field no-lights days with the same result: days or even months between the beginning and conclusion of a game. Roster changes happened, and the world didn't end. It was elegant in a sense that each team had 25 guys on the roster at all times.... nobody said it had to be the same 25 guys.

This rainout-replay rule was just an oddball loophole (only applies in rainouts of tie games!?) that has now been closed.

This rainout-replay rule was just an oddball loophole (only applies in rainouts of tie games!?) that has now been closed.

What was the rationale for replaying the games entirely, anyway? In other words, how did the rule originally come about?

What was the cause of the suspension? Couldn't have been rain, and SF hasn't played any late-season meaningful games in a couple of years.

IIRC, it wasn't the Giants that needed the game, it was their opponents.

I'm probably misremembering.

Greg Pope - I wish I knew. One possibility: It was a fallout of an original rule that all games are replayed if they are rained out before completion. Someone must have said, "Hey, can't we just award a win to the team that's winning after five innings? That would seem fair." The rulemakers took care of that case, then forgot to account for the remaining corner case.

Cricket fans, what do they do in that sport when rain postpones a match?

I wouldn't think the new 12 second rule will have nearly as much of an effect as those might hope, seeing that it only applies when there are no runners on base. With no one on, I think even Trachsel is safe.

The scary thing to me is that part of the Kenny Rogers rule prohibits even rosin from being applied to the ball. If pitchers can't use what was for decades and decades a legitimate gripping aid, it might significantly damage their ability to throw breaking balls.

The Pine Tar Game wasn't tied. The umpire called Brett out, which ended the game with the Yankees winning. When the ruling was overturned, it was continued with the Royals leading.

Greg,

re cricket. To an extent, it depends.

For a normal league one-day game, if the game never starts then it's called a draw and the teams share the points. There are also a number of scenarios that are affected by what stage of the match you're at when the rain (dust storms, fog, influx of flying beetles, whatever) starts. There's an extremely complicated equation called the Duckworth-Lewis method (that I'm not even going to attempt to explain) that decides how many runs a chasing team needs to make in a match that's shortened by rain.

For a more important one-day match (normally now only the final of a major competition), there will normally be a reserve day set aside to replay the game. I think they will usually restart the game from scratch.

For longer three, four or five day matches, rain is just another hazard and, while some time can be made up, there is no option of restarting or resuming at a later date. The draw can be an honourable result in cricket, not every game has to be won or lost.

I hope that mostly answers your question.

The Pine Tar Game wasn't tied. The umpire called Brett out, which ended the game with the Yankees winning. When the ruling was overturned, it was continued with the Royals leading.

I love the box score for that game. Ron Guidry in CF, Don Mattingly at 2B.

Typical One Day matches in cricket are 50 overs a side, with each side completing its quota in one go.
It is deemed an official game if both sides have face a minimum of 25 overs.
In case of rain during the "first innings"( when the initial side is batting its 50 overs), given upon the length of interruption, the quota for both innings can be re-assesed.
In case of interruption during the second innings, or between innings, the target is re-assesed using the Suckworth-lewis method :), which is fairly complicated for most normal human beings. The only thing that can be said in its favour is that its better than the infamous "Richie Benaud rain rule" . I think the latter is best discussed with some South Africans in the audience.

It is fairly similar to how baseball handles I think. minimum of 5 innings for it to be official, and after that, the highest scorer at the time the game is stopped being the winner. While that is easy in baseball, it is much more complicated in cricket ( For example, imagine a rule where there is rain in the half inning before your side bats, and the system has to acocunt for whether the top of your order is coming up or the bottom of your order ). So if the game is tied, and the above example is true, the side with the top of the order intact is awarded the game.

GMs and managers didn't like the tie-replay rule because it required teams to use too many pitchers.

It's a lot easier to tweak your staff to finish off a game and then play another nine innings later, rather than have to work on getting another 18 innings of the staff.

It's not.

There won't be a tie column in the standings and ties, which were rare before, will be even rarer. You only need a tie column if the ties figure into the standings. Japanese standings include ties because tie games there are not replayed nor are they used in either the numerator or denominator for winning percentage. They just get burned off the schedule there.

Didn't Randy Johnson break the ML record for strikeouts by a "reliever" in a resumed game?

IIRC, Curt Schilling started a night game, but the stadium lights blew after about an inning. When they couldn't get them working again, they just picked up the game the next day where they'd left off. But Arizona decided to stick with its rotation, Randy came in, and got 15, 16, 17 strikeouts, something like that. True?

GB - Yes he did, July 18-19, 2001. Link