PDA

View Full Version : Game suspension rule?


Whitesox029
05-02-2007, 12:57 PM
The Cubs and Pirates are finishing up their game that was suspended yesterday before playing today's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but under the old rule, it would have a been a 6-5 victory for the Cubs in 7 innings. The same thing happened with Milwaukee and Florida earlier this year. Can anyone clarify this, because I don't remember it ever happening in previous years.

BeeBeeRichard
05-02-2007, 01:04 PM
It's a new rule for '07 and point 5 below is the one that applies in this case -- the cubs had taken the lead in the top of the 7th and the inning had not been completed.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/start_end_4.jsp


4.12
SUSPENDED GAMES.
(a) A game shall become a suspended game that must be completed at a future date if the game is terminated for any of the following reasons:
(1) A curfew imposed by law;
(2) A time limit permissible under league rules;
(3) Light failure or malfunction of a mechanical field device under control of the home club. (Mechanical field device shall include automatic tarpaulin or water removal equipment);
(4) Darkness, when a law prevents the lights from being turned on;
(5) Weather, if a regulation game is called while an inning is in progress and before the inning is completed, and the visiting team has scored one or more runs to take the lead, and the home team has not retaken the lead; or
(6) It is a regulation game that is called with the score tied. National Association Leagues may also adopt the following rules for suspended games. (If adopted by a National Association League, Rule 4.10(e) would not apply to their games.):
(7) The game has not become a regulation game (41/2 innings with the home team ahead, or 5 innings with the visiting club ahead or tied).
(8) If a game is suspended before it becomes a regulation game, and is continued prior to another regularly scheduled game, the regularly scheduled game with be limited to seven innings.
(9) If a game is suspended after it is a regulation game, and is continued prior to another regularly scheduled game, the regularly scheduled game will be a nine inning game.

chisoxmike
05-02-2007, 01:05 PM
Yeah, its new...and lame.

I believe that since the Pirates were the home team and they were down, the new rule says they must have their last at bat. So today, if the Pirates dont score in the bottom of the 7th, the Cubs win.

So the Cubs have to play this morning, then play a few hours later for their regular scheduled game...please.

Chicken Dinner
05-02-2007, 01:11 PM
Yeah, its new...and lame.

I believe that since the Pirates were the home team and they were down, the new rule says they must have their last at bat. So today, if the Pirates dont score in the bottom of the 7th, the Cubs win.

So the Cubs have to play this morning, then play a few hours later for their regular scheduled game...please.

No, they'll finish the whole 9 innings.

CHISOXFAN13
05-02-2007, 01:16 PM
Yeah, its new...and lame.

I believe that since the Pirates were the home team and they were down, the new rule says they must have their last at bat. So today, if the Pirates dont score in the bottom of the 7th, the Cubs win.

So the Cubs have to play this morning, then play a few hours later for their regular scheduled game...please.

They are currently in the 9th and will start the second game a half-hour later. :?:

DeadMoney
05-02-2007, 01:22 PM
In the past, would the Pirates have won (and no this is not because I'm anti-Cubs, I'm just a little confused now)?

My thinking here is that the Pirates led, and the game was official (they led 5-2 after the top of the 6th). And since the Pirates did not get a chance to have their at bat (after the Cubs scored four in the seventh), the Cubs runs would've been swept away due to the Pirates not having the chance to bat (and the score would revert back to 5-2 - at the last point where both teams had a fair shot at winning).
^ That's always been my interpretation of the rule

My question is, would the game always have been suspended and restarted, or am I right to think that the Pirates should've won?

oeo
05-02-2007, 01:30 PM
Yeah, its new...and lame.

I believe that since the Pirates were the home team and they were down, the new rule says they must have their last at bat. So today, if the Pirates dont score in the bottom of the 7th, the Cubs win.

So the Cubs have to play this morning, then play a few hours later for their regular scheduled game...please.

I've always thought it should be this way. Why should one team get an extra inning because of weather?

ilsox7
05-02-2007, 01:30 PM
In the past, would the Pirates have won (and no this is not because I'm anti-Cubs, I'm just a little confused now)?

My thinking here is that the Pirates led, and the game was official (they led 5-2 after the top of the 6th). And since the Pirates did not get a chance to have their at bat (after the Cubs scored four in the seventh), the Cubs runs would've been swept away due to the Pirates not having the chance to bat (and the score would revert back to 5-2 - at the last point where both teams had a fair shot at winning).
^ That's always been my interpretation of the rule

My question is, would the game always have been suspended and restarted, or am I right to think that the Pirates should've won?

Pirates would have won.

BeeBeeRichard
05-02-2007, 01:31 PM
My question is, would the game always have been suspended and restarted, or am I right to think that the Pirates should've won?


I believe you are correct. The game results would have been rolled back to the last COMPLETED inning, the 6th, when the Pirates were still leading.

The rule change prevented the Cubs from writing a new chapter in their book "Lovable Losers: 1,000,001 Ways To Lose A Baseball Game."

TDog
05-03-2007, 09:21 PM
I believe you are correct. The game results would have been rolled back to the last COMPLETED inning, the 6th, when the Pirates were still leading.

The rule change prevented the Cubs from writing a new chapter in their book "Lovable Losers: 1,000,001 Ways To Lose A Baseball Game."


That chapter has probably been written numerous times, especially since games called by darkness weren't suspended until the 1960, long before the Cubs got home lighting.

I've seen that chapter played out in White Sox history. On Aug. 26, 1971, Mike Andrews pinch-hitting for Bart Johnson, hit a one-out home run in the top of the ninth in Baltimore to tie the game, and the White Sox took a 9-8 before the rains came, washing away Andrews' home run and sending the White Sox to an 8-7 loss. According to baseball, Andrew never came up that night, fouling off pitch after pitch before he took Eddie Watt deep.

sox1970
05-03-2007, 10:17 PM
That chapter has probably been written numerous times, especially since games called by darkness weren't suspended until the 1960, long before the Cubs got home lighting.

I've seen that chapter played out in White Sox history. On Aug. 26, 1971, Mike Andrews pinch-hitting for Bart Johnson, hit a one-out home run in the top of the ninth in Baltimore to tie the game, and the White Sox took a 9-8 before the rains came, washing away Andrews' home run and sending the White Sox to an 8-7 loss. According to baseball, Andrew never came up that night, fouling off pitch after pitch before he took Eddie Watt deep.

I had wondered about that rule the other day. It certainly wouldn't be fair for the road team to have more chances to score. Good rule I think. And real good they won't have tie games that they restart.