Joe West's Illegal Pitch call in the Cards/Pirates game

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Gee
You can't equate MLB rules with the OBR or any other baseball rule book.

Funny my OBR reads "The official rules of Major League Baseball.

When I go to the MLB site and bring up the rule book, it is OBR.

Now I have a copy of the Major League Baseball Umpires Manual, but that's not a set of rules. I have the JEA and J/R but they're both OBR. I'm confused Gee, what is this "MLB Rules" of which you speak?

[DownTownTonyBrown]

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?

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
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.

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.

[Atl Blue]

Tug McGraw, in a bet with another player, with no one on, once started his motion, then simply fell down. That is an interrupted delivery if I ever saw one.

The call, which was correct, was, this is nothing. Pitchers occassionally stop their motions with no one on base. It's nothing.

If it continues, and is abused, warn and eject. but it's not a ball. West is making up his own rules...again. (Yes, he is the crew chief with Emmel on the crew!).

[TBBlue]

Dave, thanks for taking the time to find and quote the Evans opinion. I believe the older rule of calling the ball would be a better, swifter deterent and makes more sense to me, but the game and interpretation of rules evolves. For calling games using strict OBR, ie. Legion, adult leagues, etc. I will make sure to follow Evans and make it a "don't do that". Unless someone else comes up with a different authoritative interpretation...then we are back where we were. It would really be nice to know what the game evaluation of the West call was. Not to publically slam West, but just for umpires trying to make the right call in the future to get MLB's official view. I realize it probably will not happen.



[Edited by TBBlue on Aug 24th, 2004 at 12:57 AM]

[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.

[Tim C]

The "big wigs" are probably silent on this issue Tony because David nailed it 100%.

There are no provisions in the rules to do ANY of the things that you have demanded AND the rules and interpretations from J/R and Evans back up everything David has noted. There are two reasons for illegal pitches . . . period. And the penalty phase is clear.

You jumped off a pretty high emotional cliff and there is no safety net below you.

Tee

[Atl Blue]

I'm no big wig, but I'll chime in also. Dave Hensley is 100% correct. There are only TWO illegal pitches, and stopping in the middle of your windup with no one on base is not one of them.

What West should have done was called time when the pitcher paused, and called NO pitch. And no right minded umpire is going to warn and eject the first time a pitcher does this, and probably not even the second. But if he continues to do it, I tell him to knock it off. If he then continues, now he gets the boot.

Of course you take other things into consideration: is he stopping because he is losing his footing on a badly conditioned mound? If so, OK, I'm not looking to eject anyone. But if he continues to start and stop just to distract the batter, sorry, his a$$ is out of here.

But there is no ball on the batter. Once again, West is making up rules (or punishments), just like his partner Emmel did last week.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Tim C
The "big wigs" are probably silent on this issue Tony because David nailed it 100%.

Ditto.

Tony -- what would you call if F1 takes his signs off the rubber? What if he starts the motion to pitch, but then steps back? Moves from wind-up to set (or vice-versa)?

All of these are "illegal acts", but don't result in a penalty (with no runners on base).

That said, maybe the rule will be changed.

Or, maybe Joe (or whoever the umpire was) didn't penalize the stop, but considered that to be "nothing" then viewed the rest of the movement a "new" pitch and, without sufficient notice to the batter, thus a quick pitch, thus an "illegal pitch" thus a ball.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Tim C
The "big wigs" are probably silent on this issue Tony because David nailed it 100%.

Tee

In the absence of bigwigs, allow me to add another ditto.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by Tim C
The "big wigs" are probably silent on this issue Tony because David nailed it 100%.

There are no provisions in the rules to do ANY of the things that you have demanded AND the rules and interpretations from J/R and Evans back up everything David has noted. There are two reasons for illegal pitches . . . period. And the penalty phase is clear.

You jumped off a pretty high emotional cliff and there is no safety net below you.

Tee

Tim, stunningly (at least for me), you're serious that 8.01d only applies to pitching before the batter is ready and/or pitching from off the rubber. Man, I find that interpretation difficult to believe!

Perhaps it is my primarily NFHS background that is causing my confusion.

Baseball NFHS 2-18: An illegal pitch is an illegal act committed by the pitcher with no runner on base, which results in a ball being awareded the batter. When an illegal pitch occurs with a runner, or runners, on base, it is ruled a balk.

"An illegal act" in NFHS is obviously not limited to the two situations stated in the OBR definition.

I would think that NFHS would have devised that rule trying to base it upon the OBR. So again, it makes it very difficult for me believe that the OBR intent is so vastly different from the stated NFHS rule.

Perhaps one of you can explain to me then... What does "without interruption or alteration" mean? SECONDLY, how do you get from rule 8.01 to the ejection penalty specified in rule 8.02 (that seems nearly specifically aimed at defacing the ball)? Perhaps I am confused and you got to ejection in some other way beside 8.02?

Why would you flattly eject without going through the motions of 8.02 PENALTY? And how did you get past the first action of item "(a) Call the pitch a ball?"
PENALTY: For violation of any part of this rule 8.02 (a) (2 to 6) the umpire shall:
(a) Call the pitch a ball, warn the pitcher and have announced on the public address system the reason for the action.
(b) In the case of a second offense by the same pitcher in the same game, the pitcher shall be disqualified from the game.
(c) If a play follows the violation called by the umpire, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and no other runner is put out before advancing at least one base, the play shall proceed without reference to the violation.
(d) Even though the offense elects to take the play, the violation shall be recognized and the penalties in (a) and (b) will still be in effect.

8.01 starts with the words "Legal pitching delivery." To not follow the rules of 8.01 would be .... illegal? or maybe not; maybe it would be that subtle difference that Hensley call "pitching illegally." I feel like I could go on and on... ooohhh I already have.

I don't mean to be recalcitrant but this interpretation does not seem appropriate or in the proper spirit of the game. Maybe I'm starting to get dizzy and the fall is about to end as I discover the lack of a safety net.

[Tim C]

You're dizzy because you haven't taken a literary breath in your last two posts.

Without going to deep:

The original question and David's answer are both based on OBR and OBR only.

We know that Brad Rumble, under his own hand, added additional penalties into FEDlandia rules.

We know that the "start and stop" wind-up with no one on base and the failure of a pitcher to come set while using the set position with no one on base were both deemed "balks" by Rumble in the early 80's.

We are trying to deal with a changing landscape of MLB rules (more accurately 'rulings') that we see every day.

We have seen the Emmel obstruction call in the Mariner game, we have seen this call by Joe West and we have seen a relief picture from Oakland (the submariner) called for a quick pitch when working from the set with no one on.

Times are changing and while I am sure that the rule book will catch up we are still faced with common usage and tradition issues that both Roder and Evans have based their findings on.

I think that David has well defined the issue and anything more that I would say would be redundant.

Tee

[David B]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

Tim, stunningly (at least for me), you're serious that 8.01d only applies to pitching before the batter is ready and/or pitching from off the rubber. Man, I find that interpretation difficult to believe!

Perhaps it is my primarily NFHS background that is causing my confusion.

Baseball NFHS 2-18: An illegal pitch is an illegal act committed by the pitcher with no runner on base, which results in a ball being awareded the batter. When an illegal pitch occurs with a runner, or runners, on base, it is ruled a balk.

"An illegal act" in NFHS is obviously not limited to the two situations stated in the OBR definition.

I would think that NFHS would have devised that rule trying to base it upon the OBR. So again, it makes it very difficult for me believe that the OBR intent is so vastly different from the stated NFHS rule.

Perhaps one of you can explain to me then... What does "without interruption or alteration" mean? SECONDLY, how do you get from rule 8.01 to the ejection penalty specified in rule 8.02 (that seems nearly specifically aimed at defacing the ball)? Perhaps I am confused and you got to ejection in some other way beside 8.02?

Why would you flattly eject without going through the motions of 8.02 PENALTY? And how did you get past the first action of item "(a) Call the pitch a ball?"
PENALTY: For violation of any part of this rule 8.02 (a) (2 to 6) the umpire shall:
(a) Call the pitch a ball, warn the pitcher and have announced on the public address system the reason for the action.
(b) In the case of a second offense by the same pitcher in the same game, the pitcher shall be disqualified from the game.
(c) If a play follows the violation called by the umpire, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to accept the play. Such election shall be made immediately at the end of the play. However, if the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batsman, or otherwise, and no other runner is put out before advancing at least one base, the play shall proceed without reference to the violation.
(d) Even though the offense elects to take the play, the violation shall be recognized and the penalties in (a) and (b) will still be in effect.

8.01 starts with the words "Legal pitching delivery." To not follow the rules of 8.01 would be .... illegal? or maybe not; maybe it would be that subtle difference that Hensley call "pitching illegally." I feel like I could go on and on... ooohhh I already have.

I don't mean to be recalcitrant but this interpretation does not seem appropriate or in the proper spirit of the game. Maybe I'm starting to get dizzy and the fall is about to end as I discover the lack of a safety net.

In our FED games we call it the same way as OBR. No sense penalizing with no one one base. Just start over etc.,

Keeping it simple.

I don't have my BRD with me, but I feel that would be pretty close to the suggested interpretation, but I could be wrong.

Thanks
David

[TBBlue]

Rule 9.01(b) Each umpire is the representative of the league and of professional baseball, and is authorized and required to enforce all of these rules. Each umpire has authority to order a player, coach, manager or club officer or employee to do or refrain from doing anything which affects the administering of these rules, and to enforce the prescribed penalties. d) Each umpire has authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager or substitute for objecting to decisions, or for unsportsmanlike conduct or language, and to eject such disqualified person from the playing field.,...(OBR, MLB.COM)

Since I started this discussion I'll chime in again. The ejection of pitcher for refusing to "don't do that" comes from this rule, not any pitching rules. A "don't do that" is a decision of the umpire to order a pitcher as to what he can't do, per the pitching rules.

Which is why I don't believe the "don't do that" is the way the rule should be written. In my opinion a ball is a more appropiate penalty, but in OBR, that's not the way the rule is to be interpreted, per Evans. As Dave Hensley has adequately answered my request for an authoritative opinion, this is "a don't do that", whether I like it or not. I am charged with administering the rules. In OBR games, it is a "don't do that" and if pitcher continues to deliberately refuse to "not do that" then we will go down the ejection road. But not necessarily if he slips an inning or two later...back to judgement and common sense.

Thanks for everyone's opinions. I'm here to learn, and whether I agree with everyone, or not, I've learned something from this thread.




[Edited by TBBlue on Aug 25th, 2004 at 01:02 AM]

[Dave Hensley]

> 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.

You don't seem to be grasping the distinction beween illegal acts by the pitcher, and Illegal Pitches, as explicitly defined in OBR. As you later suggested to Tee, I agree that you may be being led astray by the FED definition and penalization of illegal pitches. On this issue, FED and OBR are not the same, and are really not even close.

And yes, I do work baseball. Something in the neighborhood of 2,000 games in the last 10 years or so, predominantly teenager summer/rec ball, high school, and amateur adult.

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

In OBR, Illegal Pitches are specifically defined as quick pitches, and pitches made while not in contact with the rubber. Other violations of the pitching rules are illegal, but they are not Illegal Pitches, as the term Illegal Pitch is defined in the OBR.

> 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.

Rule 9.01(b) and (d) authorize the umpire to order players to do or refrain from doing anything that affects the umpire's administration of the game, and to eject for unsportsmanlike conduct. Rule 4.15(e) authorizes the umpire to declare a forfeit if a team continues to violate a rule, after warning by the umpire. By custom and practice, the forfeit penalty is frequently lessened to ejection of the offender.

To quote Evans again, "There are many rules of play included in the rulebook which do not have specific penalties prescribed for their violation. When no specific penalty is mandated by the playing rules, this rule, 4.15(e), could apply. Forfeiture is a very severe penalty; therefore, the umpire must insure that he issues sufficient warning and exercises good common sense before forfeiting a game."

> 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.

Since you don't believe me, I hope you've been persuaded to rethink your understanding based on the comments of everyone else who has chimed in, endorsing the interpretation I've provided.

> 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?

Again, you misunderstand what I have said. I have not said the start/stop is legal; I have said it does not constitute an Illegal Pitch. Therefore, the Illegal Pitch penalty (ball added to the count) does not apply. Since there is no prescribed penalty, the umpire's recourse is to warn the pitcher to stop the illegal act.

Here's a reference from the MLB Umpires Manual, regarding the issue of a pitcher failing to come to a stop while in set position (a requirement of the set position as described in 8.01(b)) when no runners are on base:

The second interpretation is in regard to a pitcher using the stretch position with no runners on base and failing to come set. The Joint Committee stated that this act is not, in itself, illegal, since the Official Rules do not provide a penalty for it. However, the Committee did emphasize that Official Rule 8.01d prohibits a pitcher from delivering the pitch before the batter is reasonably set in the batter's box.

Hopefully this example helps illustrate the concept.

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

A number of regular participants have now chimed in; I believe everyone except you is in agreement with the interpretation I have conveyed. At times like these, it's good to remember that old saying "in a fight between you and the world, back the world."

> Sorry Dave you have controlled your emotions better than myself...

I'm sorry you're sorry about that. Controlling one's emotions is a good thing. It keeps one from asking people things like "do you even work baseball" and calling their opinions "asinine."