Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick
Just to verify (not doubting), I checked the rule. Under 10.8, where is the ball dead? To me, that rule says: "if the coach takes the option of the illegal pitch, and if that award is ball 4 on the batter, then the batter is awarded first and runners advance." For example, with R2 and 3-1 count and the illegal pitch is a strike of some type (called, foul ball, take your pick). The illegal pitch now becomes ball four. BR to first, R2 to third.
But, on the same 3-1 count with R2, the illegal pitch is called a ball. BR is awarded first on ball four, the ball is still live until the conclusion of the play, including the BR being thrown out after rounding first. The offense would then have the option IF R2 didn't advance a base.
|
Here is the language in 10.8 prior to listing the scenarios and the outcomes for each:
"Simultaneously, the umpire gives the delayed dead-ball signal and waits to suspend play until the non-contacted pitch has reached the plate, or the play has been completed. Assuming no other violation has occurred (for example, leaving early):"
While not explicitly stating so, a non-contacted pitch results in a dead ball once it has reached the plate. I've never worked NCAA, but a similar scenario is a runner a runner trying to steal a base (regardless of the count) and the pitch is illegal. Even though the attempt to steal a base is still in progress and thus a play is ongoing, the explanation that was given was that ball is dead on the non-contacted pitch because that part of the rule takes precedence. I guess the idea is not to put the defense in jeopardy of trying to make an attempt to retire a runner that would be awarded the base she is trying to advance to anyway. I don't know if that is right or not, but that is what was discussed between two umpires I was sitting near during a meeting.
If that ruling is correct, I would say that the application of this to the OP results in the ball being dead because it was a non-contacted illegal pitch. I'll restate that I don't know if this is the right ruling or the right reasoning for the ruling, but hopefully it adds something to the conversation.