Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
I really think you're conflating what constitutes a judgment, and then a subsequent rule interpretation. West judged that the pitcher hestitated or interrupted his delivery. OK, fine. That's his judgment, and that is inarguable and unprotestable.
But what he RULED about that judgment, that what he did was illegal and should be penalized by a ball being added to the count, is absolutely arguable and protestable, and apparently, has been protested.
If whoever hears the protest actually applies the relevant rules and interpretations to the RULING that West made, then he/they should conclude that West's ruling (not judgment) was not in accordance with the rules and the protest should be upheld.
Based on West's judgment that the pitcher was not pitching in accordance with the requiremens of 8.01, he should have warned the pitcher to comply, and further violations should have then been penalized by the pitcher's ejection. Adding a ball to the count was a misapplication of the rules, because what the pitcher did was not an infraction for which the rules specify a ball being added to the count as the penalty.
|
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to look up the word "conflate" (To combine [two variant texts, for example] into one whole).
However, I think you are wrong. This is a simple call and a proper penalty.
As TTBlue stated the OBR rules (which are what MLB uses) the pitcher viloated and was properly penalized.
8.01(a) The Windup Position. ...From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without interruption or alteration.
To not follow that rule is to commit an illegal pitch. There is no stopping allowed in the windup delivery. Perhaps an umpire may allow some leniency (if it were done without alteration, again and again) but legally, stopping is not allowed.
And here, within the same rule (8.01), is the penalty for committing an illegal pitch.
8.01(d) If the pitcher makes an illegal pitch with the bases unoccupied, it shall be called a ball unless the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise.
I don't see any confusion. I don't see any unique conflation - that's the way rules are written.
To suddenly come up with some unusual (altered) delivery, especially when it includes stopping (interruption) is a violation of the rules and the penalty is for a ball to be called on the batter.
To protest this call is laughable. And the penalty of notification and ejection for subsequent violation is for a violation of rule 8.02 where the pitcher changes the condition of the ball (spit, vaseline, snot, shine, emory cloth, etc.). You don't eject someone for changing their delivery style - the pitcher can make 27 illegal pitches in a row, if he wants.
Am I missing your point because this ruling seems extremely cut and dried ... and correct?