[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Your last statement, quoted above, is in error. The OBR specifically defines "illegal pitch," in 2.00:

An ILLEGAL PITCH is (1) a pitch delivered to the batter when the pitcher does not have his pivot foot
in contact with the pitcher's plate; (2) a quick return pitch. An illegal pitch when runners are on base is
a balk.

Not following the first statement in 8.01(a) is pitching illegally, but it is not committing an Illegal Pitch.

As Jim Evans states in Baseball Rules Annotated, "Today's rule delineates between illegal pitches and illegal acts by the pitcher. Penalties for these various infractions can be found in 2.00 Illegal Pitch, 8.01(d), 8.02(a) Penalty, and 8.05(e) Penalty."

The infraction under discussion in this thread would be a balk with runners on, but with no runners it is simply an illegal act, penalized by warning to cease and desist, followed by ejection for failure to heed the warning.

You cannot possibly be serious to think that the only two things that make a pitch illegal are to not be in contact the rubber or to pitch before the batter is ready. Do you work baseball at all? Sorry Dave but this is an absolutely asinine assumption.

Okay. You say I'm wrong and that pitching illegally is not the same as delivering an illegal pitch. WHAT??!!!

You say this is an ejectable offense. WHAT??!!! Where is that rule? I think you are going to have to conflate something pretty extreme to get that rule/penalty.

I have no idea where you are coming from. For every diamond game that I work, if the pitcher makes a delivery that is illegal, the umpire should call "ILLEGAL PITCH." The batter then gets the proper award for that violation of the rules as made by the defense. And that award is either a ball added to his count, or the results of the play. I have never heard of anyone ejecting a pitcher for committing an illegal pitch - unless it was construed to be 'making a travesty of the game' or that it possibly was an unsafe act endangering the batter.

Explain to me how you are envisioning the legality of this act. Is a two second pause (that was the original scenario) considered part of the delivery? Or has the time of the pitch not happened yet? Has the pitcher not committed himself to deliver yet - can he step off? Can he hang there for 15 seconds - is that also legal? During this two second pause, can the batter request a timeout?

What do you feel Rule 8.01 means when it says "without interruption?" Does that mean the beer man cannot approach him and offer to sell him a beverage? And it seems that you think a violation of 8.01 (pitching illegally but not considered an illegal pitch) is an ejectable offense if repeated. So if the beer man does this twice, we eject the pitcher.

As for Evans: 2.00 definition of an illegal pitch does not include any statement of penalty (so the first phrase of his statement is wrong, but that is trivial). Two of the other references (8.01d, 8.02a) do reference penalties, but of course those penalties are not for either of the stipulated "illegal pitch" requirements. The last reference (8.05e) actually does reference a quick pitch - one of the defined illegal pitches. Given that follow through of his statement, and your percieved interpretation of his statement, the definition of illegal pitch should be rewritten to include 1)the pitcher going to his mouth and 2)the quick pitch. Being off the rubber should be removed from the definition because there is no direct connection of a single paragraph stating the violation and the associated penalty. Therefore, 8.01d is too general.

Evans also tries to say there is a difference between illegal pitches (what I feel are violations of 8.01 and possibly others) and illegal acts by the pitcher (what I feel are violations of 8.02 - defacing the ball, delaying the game, throwing at batters). So all absurdity aside, I agree with Evans but I do not agree with your interpretation. And I do not think Evans would say that for a pitcher to repeatedly start and stop his delivery warrants a warning and subsequent ejection for repeated violation. And I surely don't feel the rules say that either. If the situation was as originally described (2 second pause in mid delivery), I think West was correct and the penalty was correct.

The idea that ONLY the two previously mentioned actions from the 2.00 definition create an illegal pitch is absurd. The fallacy of what you are proposing is very obvious to me. And it seems very simple to show/prove that there are many violations that are classified as illegal pitches and that should be either ignored if they are minor in nature, or if they are severe enough to create issues and attract the umpire's/player's attention, that should be penalized by adding a ball to the batter's count.

Where are the big wigs on this issue? Why are they silent?

Sorry Dave you have controlled your emotions better than myself... and if someone can really point to a rule or an official interpretation that says "you only award a ball to the batter for an illegal pitch when the pitcher delivers from off the rubber or before the batter is prepared." I'll eat crow.