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

[Illini_Ref]

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.

[TBBlue]

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]

[Illini_Ref]

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????

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by TBBlue
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]

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.

[Illini_Ref]

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.

[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by Illini_Ref
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.

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

[TBBlue]

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.

[Dave Hensley]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Reed

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:

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.

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.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by TBBlue
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.

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.

[TBBlue]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jicecone

[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]

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by TBBlue
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.

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.

[Peruvian]

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.

[TBBlue]

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

[Gee]

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

[cbfoulds]

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

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