Joe West called an IP in the Cardinal-Pirate game tonight. The Pirate pitcher was in the windup with nobody on base. He brought his right knee up (he was a LHP) and held it up for abouttwo seconds, stopping his motion. He then continued and delivered the pitch. West called an IP. Is that a good call? It seems to be a proibited act according to OBR and NFHS. They both say that after the TOP, the pitcher has to deliver the ball without interruption. NF says that a violation is an IP, but there is no penalty mentioned in OBR that I see.

What do you think??? The Pirates are playing the game under protest, although it is a moot point know because the run didn't score. It was on a 3-2 pitch, so it resulted in a walk.

Didn't see it. But West must have judged him to have stopped the delivery to the plate. His timing determined that the two seconds was too long. Once he deceived Joe, it follows he deceived the batter. Judgement call. IP. Play. Protest wouldn't fly if outcome of game had been altered, because we are dealing with judgement.

West has been around too long for someone to win an argument against him that he judged the pitcher to have stopped. Right, Wrong, or in the middle, in Joe West's judgement, he stopped the delivery to the plate.

[Edited by TBBlue on Aug 19th, 2004 at 11:24 PM]

I guess what I am confused about is this. In NFHS rules, stopping your delivery is an IP, even if the pitch is not delivered. However, I can find no penalty for stopping in OBR. In OBR, does the pitch have to be delivered to be an IP??? The definition of an IP in OBR is VERY limited if I remember correctly, at least more limited than NFHS. I don't work many OBR games, so I am not that familiar with the slight differences.

If a pitcher, playing under OBR, starts a windup with nobody on base, then abandons the pitch and just starts over, is that an IP. In NF it is, although I have never saw it called that way with nobody on base.

I understand that in tonights MLB game, the pitch was thrown, but what if it wasn't and the pitcher just stopped. Any violation????

Notwithstanding your apparent defense of the call based on West's "judgment," would you please cite the OBR rule upon which this judgment has supposedly been based?

Thanks.

Mr Hensley is wondering the same thing as me. According to OBR, and IP is only one of TWO things, pitching from off of the rubber and a quick pitch. Stopping your motion is neither of these. Neither is it any of the illegal "acts" that are listed in OBR. I think Cowboy Joe West "kicked" this one.

Here's what MLB.com (Mathew Leach) had to say in one of game wraps:
What might have been a brief, crisp game was twice interrupted -- first by a contested call and later by rain. Pittsburgh played the game under protest after Sanders was awarded a second-inning walk due to Oliver Perez "altering his pitching motion." Pirates manager Lloyd McClendon argued at length, followed by an extended discussion among the umpiring crew.

"He stopped and started three times throughout that whole windup," said Sanders. "So it was weird."

Later, a mighty rainstorm (snip)

Sanders was leading off the inning, and the altered motion occurred on a 3-2 count.

Jaksa/Roder make clear that an illegal pitch is one that is intended to deceive the batter. Perhaps the PU felt that the pause was so long that it violated the spirit of the rule. Probably the batter wouldn't feel that he could successfully ask for time, and yet the timing of the at bat is clearly significantly altered.

Dave

8.01(a) The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his entire pivot foot on, or in front of and touching and not off the end of the pitcher's plate, and the other foot free. 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.
(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.

OBR as posted by MLB.com.

These are the rules Joe used. He deemed the alteration an illegal pitch, even though it isn't mentioned in the balk rule under illegal pitches. I can't tell you if Joe was correct in his penalty, because I don't own all of the interpretation manuals, but according to Mr. Reed's post, J/R seems to back him.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Reed

Quote:

Originally posted by Illini_Ref Jaksa/Roder make clear that an illegal pitch is one that is intended to deceive the batter.

Here is the Jaksa/Roder quote I believe you are relying on for the above interpretation:

<font color=blue>It is a balk if a pitcher:
...
(15) tries to deceive a runner or the batter by imitating and throwing a pitch while not in contact with the rubber, or by quickly stepping on the rubber and pitching without taking a sign. Such actions constitute an illegal pitch.*

*If there is an illegal pitch with no runners, and the batter acquires first, the illegal pitch is disregarded. Otherwise, it is a ball.</font>

I think if you read it carefully, Jaksa/Roder is referring only to a pitch made while off the rubber, and a quick pitch, which is perfectly consistent with the OBR definition of Quick Pitch, for which the penalty (with no runners) is a ball is added to the count.

The infraction West penalized is not, however, an Illegal Pitch, and there is no OBR rule basis for him to assess a penalty of a ball. The remedy for the infraction he had a problem with, as with so many infractions in OBR, is "hey, don't do that." Failure to comply with his instruction would be ejectable, but there is no basis for the penalty he assessed.

Although I haven't seen the motion in question, based on the description here all I can say is I guess West never umpired a game pitched by Hideo Nomo.

So it seems to be that JOEY may the determination that it was an illegal pitch. But, whether it was in conformance with the rules or interpretations is STILL, in question.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jicecone

Quote:

[i] So it seems to be that JOEY may the determination that it was an illegal pitch. But, whether it was in conformance with the rules or interpretations is STILL, in question.

Exactly.

2.0 ILLEGAL (or ILLEGALLY) is contrary to these rules.

With 8.01 a and d citations plus stretching this definition from 2.0, West seems to have judged 1) an altered delivery, 2)which is contrary to the rules 3) therefore illegal per these rules and 4)penalty of a ball for illegal pitch with nobody on base. As I said in my original post, this is a judgement call. These are the rules that West seems to be following to make that judgement. The supervisor in the pressbox (McKean, Garcia, or whoever was working that game) will have to sort it out and determine if West was correct on his judgement. We may or may not ever find out.

[Edited by TBBlue on Aug 20th, 2004 at 10:22 AM]

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.

It's about time someone called that on that guy. (Lopez, right?) He would stop twice, sometimes three times when he pitched against the Braves. I'm glad JW had the guts to call it.

Dave, you are probably right. Especially as this topic has been discussed at length in other threads.

However, can you or someone else please quote a citation from somewhere that backs your argument up. I only have the OBR, and combined the rules that are relative to what West called and ruled. Whether he used the proper rules or interpretations in this situation is what the debate is.

Thanks

You can't equate MLB rules with the OBR or any other baseball rule book. I'm not surprised at the call as the infraction would have an adverse effect on the batter. Just think what would happen if the pitcher was allowed to start and stop at will, between the time he is committed to the pitch and the time the ball is released. That's one reason they stopped the triple, quadruple pump, among other things that held a batter at bay.

Under OBR I couldn't and therefore wouldn't call it a ball but would give one warning and then eject as it is obviously done to distract the batter. G

Did you leave out "...as actually enforced...", after "MLB rules..."? I mean, my copy of the ORB says copyright: Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. Now, we all know that "how it is written" is not always "how it gets done". But, on paper at least, ORB IS [are?] "MLB rules".

--Carter

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?

Thanks
 

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?

Re: Thanks
 

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

<font color=blue>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.</font>

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 <u>Baseball Rules Annotated</u>, "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.

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!).

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]

You've got to be completely kidding
 

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.

Well,
 

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

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.

Re: Well,
 

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. ;)

Re: Well,
 

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

Re: Well,
 

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. :)

Tony,
 

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

Re: Re: Well,
 

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

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]

Re: You've got to be completely kidding
 

> 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:

<font color=blue>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.</font>

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."

In these "don't do that" situations, do you allow the pitch and warn after or negate the pitch immediately? If you allow the pitch, do you call the pitch a ball or strike as the case may be? What if a hit follows the pitch?

Good Question!
 

I asked this question (and another like it) to Mike Winters, Gary Darling, Dale Scott at a clinic. I also asked Rick Roder the same question through the WUA website.

All agree, as soon as the umpire comes out with a "don't do that" type call (actually the proper mechanic is, "TIME, don't do that!") the ball is an immedaite dead ball and nothing happens with that pitch.

As an associated question I also asked the same people about what happens when the plate umpire directs the pitcher to pitch (such as when a batter is slow to enter the batter's box) and if it is a "Live Ball" and can the batter jump in and hit the pitch?

After several go arounds where there was a large disagreement amoung the umpires listed Roder stated that MLB policy is that the action is actually a "directed strike" and that the batter may not, under any circumstances, re-enter the box and hit the pitch.

I hope this answers your question with enough authoritative opinions as it is not written in black and white in the rule book.

Tee

Wendelstedt also agrees
 

"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."

Harry Wendelstedt agrees: In his school manual, he also says. ". . . Pitcher's violations are broken down into three categories- Balks, Illegal Pitches (which may qualify as a balk), and "Time! Don't do that"'s"

Under the 2nd category {illegal pitches} that he lists, is ". . . ONLY when a pitcher (1) delivers a pitch to the batter while not in contact with the pitcher's plate, or (2) makes a Quick Pitch."

And to clarify an above post about the pitcher that does not stop in the Set with no runners on, also using the Wendelstedt Manual; "A Quick Pitch ONLY is one that the pitcher either (1) from behind or beside the pitcher's plate, quickly steps on the rubber, and immediately throws a pitch, or (2) delivers a pitch to the batter when the batter is not facing him. . . A Quick Pitch should rarely be called in case #2 as the umpire should usually prevent this by calling "Time" when the pitcher begins to pitch, if he believes the batter is not properly adjusted. This may occur though in the situation where the pitcher is delivering from the Wind-Up position, but does not go through the "Wind-Up", but merely steps and throws home. . . There is certainly a difference between a Quick Pitch, and pitching quickly."

Under the 3rd category {Time! Don't do that"'s} that he lists, ". . . when a pitcher, with no runners on, stops his motion to deliver a pitch. . . in some instances an umpire may need to add "and anymore, you'll be ejected"."

Re: Wendelstedt also agrees
 

Does this Harry guy actually work baseball?

(just kidding, thanks for the additional references)

Re: Good Question!
 

Excellently. Thanks all.

Yes,
 

But the real question is:

Does my friend DownTown agree with any of this yet?

Tee

Chomp chomp chomp
 

Sorry, I've got a little crow stuck in my throat.

I still don't think the rule book is clear enough and, after thoroughly reading the concerned rules, I wouldn't have argued (obviously I didn't) the same interpretation as several here have stated.

I am still keeping up with the thread and appreciate the numerous responses.

I completely agree with Evans' statement concerning the separation of "illegal pitches and illegal acts" but contrary to the general consensus, I feel that stated difference addresses the separation of rule 8.01 (how to legally deliver a pitch) from rule 8.02 (illegal acts such as defacing the ball). Based upon my very limited experiences, my understanding of the spirit of the game, and my reading abilities, I would not have arrived at the interpretation that many of you have... including apparently Wendelstedt. Of course I do live in a vacuum... or Idaho, I mean. We're not quite the baseball Mecca of the world.

I can rule appropriately in the future. My appologies to you Mr. Hensley; at the time I felt correct in what I was saying and voiced it rather strongly. I meant no personal effrontery.

I obviously need to gain a little more knowledge than just the rule book. Recommendations for additions to my baseball library will be gladly accepted. You can reply to this thread or send them to my personal email as listed in my profile.

All is well. :D
Tony

"As an associated question I also asked the same people about what happens when the plate umpire directs the pitcher to pitch (such as when a batter is slow to enter the batter's box) and if it is a "Live Ball" and can the batter jump in and hit the pitch?

After several go arounds where there was a large disagreement amoung the umpires listed Roder stated that MLB policy is that the action is actually a "directed strike" and that the batter may not, under any circumstances, re-enter the box and hit the pitch."

I can see there are disagreements. I can remember when Angel Hernandez told the pitcher to pitch when Bobby Higginson didn't enter the box. Bobby came running in and connected for a base-hit. Nothing said.

And Roder does clearly state that it's illegal to enter the box once the pitcher is instructed to pitch without the batter.

-Jeremiah