Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn
True.
I guess my question is ... why the exception. Especially, why THAT exception and no other. Seems to make more sense to me WITHOUT the exception entirely.
|
As explained to me (not that I made the decision):
In all OTHER situations, the play may be, and probably will be, affected by the two teams knowing there was an illegal pitch called; if the defense fails to play it out, or the offense accomplishes something better than the IP award, the offense deserves that result (or the option, anyway). If not, the fall back result is the illegal pitch award.
But, unless the illegal pitch actually induces a runner to leave the base early (the EXCEPTION noted earlier), that action is completely unrelated to the illegal pitch, and the offense violated in a way that shouldn't be rewarded by being erased. Most often, not only is it unrelated, but the runner leaving early would most often precede the illegal pitch call (leaping, crow hop, either foot leaving the pitcher's plate, stepping outside the 24).
Conversely, most early (prior to the actual pitch) violations (double touch, applying a foreign substance, not wiping after going to the mouth, failing to pause with hands separated to take or simulate taking a signal) typically result in a "no pitch", anyway, so a violation of leaving early would be ignored under the exception.
So, the individual (KR) that made the initial ruling for ASA (I believe it was made before MS duplicated for NFHS, or DA duplicated for NCAA) stated he believed that was the appropriate penalty based on what happened, when it happened, and if ignoring (or erasing) the violation should be appropriate.