We are reader supported. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Also, as an Amazon affiliate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
There is no MLB rule officially called the “Intentional Throw Rule.” In baseball, the phrase usually refers to a pitcher intentionally throwing at a batter.
The actual rule is Official Baseball Rule 6.02(c)(9), “Intentionally Pitch at the Batter.”
If an umpire determines that a pitcher intentionally threw at a hitter, the umpire may immediately eject the pitcher—or both the pitcher and manager. The umpire may instead warn both teams that another intentional pitch will result in ejection.
A warning is not required before the first ejection.
The batter also does not have to be hit. A pitch deliberately thrown at or behind a batter can violate the rule even if it misses. MLB’s rule makes the umpire’s judgment of intent the key issue.
What Does the Intentional Throw Rule Actually Mean?
Rule 6.02(c)(9) appears among MLB’s restrictions on pitchers.
When the umpire judges that a pitcher intentionally pitched at a batter, the rule provides two basic responses.
The umpire can:
- Eject the pitcher, or the pitcher and manager immediately; or
- Warn both teams that another intentional pitch will result in the immediate ejection of the offending pitcher and manager.
The rules also permit umpires to warn both teams before a game or at any point during a game if circumstances warrant.
This gives the umpiring crew discretion to respond to the situation rather than requiring an identical sequence of warning and ejection every time.
Does the Pitch Have to Hit the Batter?
No.
This is an important part of the rule.
MLB’s wording is:
“Intentionally Pitch at the Batter.”
It does not require the pitch to actually make contact.
A pitcher can therefore be ejected for deliberately throwing behind or near a batter if the umpire determines that the pitch was intentional.
Can a Pitcher Be Ejected Without a Warning?
Yes.
There is no rule requiring the umpire to warn the teams before the first ejection.
Rule 6.02(c)(9) explicitly permits immediate ejection when the umpire judges that an intentional pitch occurred.
Warnings are one option available to the umpiring crew—not a mandatory first step.
Intentional Pitch vs. Accidental Hit-by-Pitch
This is where the rule is easiest to misunderstand.
A hit-by-pitch does not automatically mean the pitcher intentionally threw at the batter.
Pitchers lose command. Breaking balls slip. Fastballs run too far inside. Pitching inside is also a legitimate part of baseball.
At the same time, a pitch does not need to hit anyone to be ruled intentional.
| Situation | Automatically violates Rule 6.02(c)(9)? |
|---|---|
| Accidental hit-by-pitch | No |
| Normal inside pitch | No |
| Intentional pitch that hits the batter | Yes, if judged intentional |
| Intentional pitch behind the batter that misses | Can still violate the rule |
| Retaliatory pitch judged intentional | Yes |
The key distinction is therefore not:
Hit vs. miss
It is:
Intentional targeting vs. legitimate pitching.
How Does an Umpire Determine Intent?
MLB does not provide a mathematical formula for determining intent.
The official rule specifically leaves the decision to the umpire’s judgment.
That means there is no automatic rule such as:
Batter hits a home run → next inside pitch = intentional.
Umpires instead evaluate the circumstances surrounding the pitch.
Context can matter, but the final ruling is still a judgment call.
That is why two similar-looking hit-by-pitches can produce different outcomes.
What Happens After Both Teams Are Warned?
Warnings change the consequences of another pitch judged intentional.
Once both teams have been officially warned, Rule 6.02(c)(9) provides for the immediate ejection of the offending pitcher—or replacement pitcher—and manager if another intentional pitch occurs.
However, a warning does not mean every later hit-by-pitch automatically produces an ejection.
The umpire must still judge the later pitch intentional.
This preserves an important distinction: pitchers are still allowed to work inside after warnings have been issued.
What Evidence Shows How MLB Actually Enforces the Rule?
The written rule tells us what umpires can do. Actual MLB cases show how that discretion works in real games.
Three cases are particularly useful because they demonstrate different parts of the rule.
| Case | Pitch / Situation | On-field result | Additional MLB discipline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Noah Syndergaard vs. Chase Utley (2016) | 99-mph fastball behind Utley; no contact | Immediate ejection | — |
| Bryan Abreu vs. Adolis García (2023 ALCS) | 99-mph fastball hit García | Immediate ejection | 2-game suspension + fine |
| Miles Mikolas vs. Ian Happ (2023) | MLB determined Mikolas intentionally threw at Happ | Ejection | 5-game suspension + fine; manager suspended 1 game |
These cases demonstrate three useful points.
First: contact is not required.
Second: prior warning is not always required.
Third: an umpire’s ejection and MLB’s later disciplinary process are separate things.
Example 1: Noah Syndergaard Throws Behind Chase Utley
On May 28, 2016, Mets pitcher Noah Syndergaard threw a 99-mph fastball behind Chase Utley.
The ball did not hit Utley.
Nevertheless, Syndergaard was immediately ejected without a prior warning.
Crew chief Tom Hallion later explained that the crew’s ruling was that Syndergaard intentionally threw at the batter.
This is one of the clearest examples of why Rule 6.02(c)(9) is not simply an intentional hit-by-pitch rule.
No contact occurred, but the rule still applied.
Example 2: Bryan Abreu Hits Adolis García at 99 mph
During Game 5 of the 2023 American League Championship Series, Astros reliever Bryan Abreu hit Rangers hitter Adolis García in the left shoulder with a 99-mph fastball.
According to MLB, all six umpires determined that Abreu’s pitch was intentional.
He was immediately ejected. MLB subsequently issued a two-game suspension and an undisclosed fine.
MLB’s disciplinary announcement specifically said the league considered the dangerous nature of the pitch and its potential impact on player safety.
This case demonstrates that the consequences can continue after the game.
Example 3: Miles Mikolas Receives a Five-Game Suspension
In July 2023, Cardinals pitcher Miles Mikolas was ejected following an incident involving Cubs hitter Ian Happ.
MLB subsequently determined that Mikolas had intentionally thrown at Happ and imposed a five-game suspension and an undisclosed fine.
Cardinals manager Oliver Marmol received a one-game suspension and a fine.
The example is useful because it shows that MLB can separately discipline both a pitcher and manager after reviewing an incident.
Why Does MLB Have This Rule?
The immediate purpose is player safety and game control.
A Major League fastball can arrive at extremely high velocity. Two of the real-world examples above involved pitches measured at 99 mph.
Allowing deliberate retaliation with pitches would create an obvious risk of injury and could lead to escalating exchanges between teams.
MLB’s handling of the Abreu incident makes the safety rationale especially clear: the league explicitly cited the pitch’s dangerous nature and potential impact on player safety when imposing discipline.
At the same time, the rule does not eliminate legitimate inside pitching.
That is why intent remains central.
The rule is designed to distinguish:
a pitcher trying to execute a baseball pitch
from
a pitcher deliberately targeting the batter.
Intentional Throw vs. Intentional Walk
These terms sound similar but describe completely different things.
An intentional walk (IBB) is a legal baseball strategy. The defense deliberately awards the hitter first base rather than pitching to him normally.
Intentionally pitching at a batter is prohibited conduct under Rule 6.02(c)(9).
| Intentional Walk | Intentionally Pitching at a Batter |
|---|---|
| Legal strategy | Prohibited |
| Batter is awarded first base | Batter is deliberately targeted |
| Recorded as IBB | May result in ejection |
| Strategic matchup decision | Safety / disciplinary issue |
| No punishment | Suspension or fine may follow |
This distinction is especially useful because “intentional throw” is not an official MLB statistical or rule term.
If you are looking for the rule that lets a manager deliberately put a hitter on first base, that is the intentional walk rule, not Rule 6.02(c)(9).
Frequently Asked Questions
Is “Intentional Throw Rule” the official MLB name?
No.
The relevant official rule is Rule 6.02(c)(9), “Intentionally Pitch at the Batter.”
Can a pitcher intentionally throw at a batter?
No. If the umpire judges that the pitcher intentionally pitched at the batter, Rule 6.02(c)(9) allows an ejection.
Does the pitch have to hit the batter?
No.
Noah Syndergaard’s 2016 ejection is a real example: his 99-mph fastball passed behind Chase Utley without hitting him, but the umpiring crew ruled that he intentionally threw at the batter.
Does the umpire have to warn both teams first?
No.
The rule permits immediate ejection or warnings, depending on the umpire’s judgment.
Does every hit-by-pitch after a warning cause an ejection?
No.
The umpire still has to determine that the subsequent pitch was intentional.
Can the manager also be ejected?
Yes.
For an initial violation, the umpire can eject the pitcher alone or both the pitcher and manager. After official warnings, another intentional pitch can result in the pitcher and manager being ejected.
Can MLB suspend the pitcher after the game?
Yes.
Bryan Abreu received a two-game suspension in 2023, while Miles Mikolas received a five-game suspension in another intentional-throwing incident that year.
下一步只需要加 External / Internal links；正文不用再擴了。