Stepping Out of the Box W/O Timeout Granted

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I have one strike for violating 7-3-1. If you have second strike and its not for violating 6-4-1(d) (no balk to absolve), what other rule violation do you have ?

The 6-2-4-d-1 strike is not for absolving a balk, it is for the pitch. "...if the pitcher legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live."

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The 6-2-4-d-1 strike is not for absolving a balk, it is for the pitch. "...if the pitcher legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live."

Yes, of course, but we were talking about when a second strike can be called. Lets assume that we have one strike for 7-3-1, delaying the game violation. Lets discuss the second strike. I am confused about RB versus CB passages.

RB 6-2-4(d)1- starts off,
If the pitcher with a runner on base stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box...
...access a strike if hesitated pitch is delivered, no strike accessed if delivery is stopped, no balk in either case. But everything in 6-2-4(d)1 is predicated on a delivery that stops or hesitates .

But CB 6.2.4I is not consistant with RB 6-2-4(d)1. In the CB a second penalty strike is accessed without any mention of any hesitated delivery (the only condition that I see in 6-2-4(d)1 for accessing a second strike).

I don't understand where the CB gets it's justification for the second strike on a non-hestitatedly delivered pitch when B steps out of the box. If anyone can help me understand how CB 6.2.4I justifies the second strike, I'd appreciate it.

[dash_riprock]

It doesn't matter if he hesitates or not, only that if he does, it is not a balk. The strikes have nothing to do with the hesitation.

Here's my problem with the second strike: If the batter steps out with both feet, and F1 delivers a pitch (hesitated or not) I don't see how 7-3-1 could apply. The pitcher delivered the ball and it was called a strike. How did the batter delay the game?

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

It doesn't matter if he hesitates or not, only that if he does, it is not a balk. The strikes have nothing to do with the hesitation.

If there is no hesitation or stop, then none of 6-2-4 applies.If I have learned anything from participating in forums such as this, it is that one can only apply rules/penalties to those conditions specified in the RB. One can not carry the rule over to non-specified conditions, just because it seems to make sense to do so.

Maybe if I can help you understand why you get a strike for 7-3-1, you can help me understand how you get another strike for violating 6-2-4(d)1 or any another rule.

7-3-1 A batter shall not: delay the game by failing to take his position promptly in the batter’s box within 20 seconds. To me, the clock is still running even after the batter initially gets in the box. If he steps out again before F1 has delivered a pitch and the 20 seconds has expired, he has violated 7-3-1. And the rule also states that The batter must keep at least one foot in the batter’s box throughout the time at bat (except for the list of exceptions given). Once he is back in the BB, none of the exceptions apply, he can not again leave the BB. So you really have two reasons to bust him on 7-3-1. (the 20 second time limit and not staying in the BB).

6-2-4 are the Fed balk rules. 6-2-4(d) is the specific balk condition of F1 stopping or hesitating his delivery. 6-2-4(d)1 is the conditions when a balk under 6-2-4(d) is not applied, and it specifies conditions where an additional penalty is given to the batter. This exemption from the balk and the penalty associated with it are all predicated on the specified conditions of 6-2-4(d)1 the pitcher...stops or hesitates in his delivery.

If F1 did not stop or hesitate in his delivery, then none of Fed 6-2-4 balk rules apply, including 6-2-4(d) or 6-2-4(d)1. If anyone can find cause for a strike other than 7-3-1, I really want to know what it is. Please use a RB reference to justify a second strike.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bluehair

If F1 did not stop or hesitate in his delivery, then none of Fed 6-2-4 balk rules apply, including 6-2-4(d) or 6-2-4(d)1. If anyone can find cause for a strike other than 7-3-1, I really want to know what it is. Please use a RB reference to justify a second strike.

Because the last part of 6-2-4(d)1 starts with "If the pitcher legally delivers the ball ..." which means that it's an exception to / clarification of the "hesitation" statement earlier.

And, to be clear, it only applies if the batter then doesn't get back in the box in 20 seconds.

Play: B1 steps out w/ 2 feet; F1 stops delivery. Has the game been delayed? Yes. Penalty: None.

Play: B1 steps out w/ 2 feet; F1 delivers. Has the game been delayed? No. Penalty: Two strikes!? GMAFB.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bluehair

If there is no hesitation or stop, then none of 6-2-4 applies.If I have learned anything from participating in forums such as this, it is that one can only apply rules/penalties to those conditions specified in the RB. One can not carry the rule over to non-specified conditions, just because it seems to make sense to do so.

0-0 count. The batter steps out with both feet, F1 legally delivers a pitch (sans hesitation) which is 4 feet outside. Is the count now 1-1?

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Because the last part of 6-2-4(d)1 starts with "If the pitcher legally delivers the ball ..." which means that it's an exception to / clarification of the "hesitation" statement earlier.

But that last part that you referenced does not start as you stated. The beginning of that sentence is: In (a),(b), and (c), if the pitcher legally delivers the ball ..." The a/b/c is still talking about the original conditions of 6-2-4(d)1, the F1 that stops or hesitates. Sorry, I still don't see how any of 6-2-4(d)1 applies without a stop or hesitation of the delivery.

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

0-0 count. The batter steps out with both feet, F1 legally delivers a pitch (sans hesitation) which is 4 feet outside. Is the count now 1-1?

That's a good example of why keeping the ball live could be a virtual problem. Are we playing RB jeopardy or game management jeopardy? Lets keep it real...game management jeopardy. Issuing a ball in sitch is just begging for the beanball episode. I'm issuing one strike or two strike, depending on how big a PITA I've got.

If one strike, its either on 7-3-1, or because my KZ reference was gone and I might have been distracted from the pitch location looking where B's both feet were or my penalty strike mechanics distracted me from seeing the pitch 4 feet outside...take your pick. If you want to argue that he ball/pitch was live, I think the pitch was a strike and his second foot didn't quite make it out of BB.

If B or offense is a big PITA, then two strikes one with 7.3.1 violation and I think the pitch was a strike. If the offense is a REALLY big PITA, then B is also ejected for 3-3-1o violation. I'm not escalating, I'm trying to de-escalate.

But I still don't see how 6-2-4(x) (the balk rules) applies to any of this. There is no F1 rule violations to apply or disregard.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bluehair

But that last part that you referenced does not start as you stated. The beginning of that sentence is: In (a),(b), and (c), if the pitcher legally delivers the ball ..." The a/b/c is still talking about the original conditions of 6-2-4(d)1, the F1 that stops or hesitates. Sorry, I still don't see how any of 6-2-4(d)1 applies without a stop or hesitation of the delivery.

The "(a) (b) and (c)" means the stepping out / holding up the hand part. It doesn't mean the pitcher "stops or hesitates" because then the pitcher CAN"T "legally deliver the ball" as listed in the sentence.

You're trying to give the editor too much credit for logical writing.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You're trying to give the editor too much credit for logical writing.

That is the only/best explanation that I have for the apparent (to me) RB/CB inconsistency.

But it still troubles me that if there is no F1 violation to penalize or disregard, why are we using anything in 6-2-4.

When I become NFHS baseball rules god, 7.3.1 will have a one strike penalty for stepping out of BB whether F1 delivers or not (one penalty strike should surfice), keep 3-3-1o for the PITA situations, and use 6-2-4(d)1 to only absolve F1 from a balk if B steps out of BB...where do I apply for the god gig?

[rcaverly]

When I become NFHS baseball rules god...

It the batter steps out with one or both feet without time granted and:

1. The plate guy doesn't stop F1 who:
a. Then legally delivers a pitch, the pitch is called on its merits;
b. Violates a pitching proscription, then ball/balk penalty is enforced;

2. The plate guy stops F1 and orders the batter back in the box who:
a. Delays complying, strike called without a pitch and order batter back in the box with a warning;
b. Delays complying after being warned, ejected and team warned; or,
c. Complies, then hits off the wall in the gap but is thrown out trying to stretch a rally-hit into a triple to end his team's half inning because he violated a cardinal rule in baserunning right in front of his Skipper who is in the 3B coaching box.

"If you don't think too good, then don't think too much." Who said that? I read it somewhere, but my memory module hasn't been updated in a while.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

0-0 count. The batter steps out with both feet, F1 legally delivers a pitch (sans hesitation) which is 4 feet outside. Is the count now 1-1?

0-1. Restart the 20-second clock.

[UMP45]

Has the batter delayed the game? I say yes. By stepping out he is hoping to f%^k with the pitcher! If the pitcher delivers this means he didn't do a very goog job.Sometimes you just have to umpire.

[MD Longhorn]

Honestly, I do not believe the intent of any of these rules was to create 2 strikes on a single pitch. And I believe the horrifying way that these rules were written is entirely the culprit in all of this confusion.

I believe the intent of the rules makers was:
A) To absolve the pitcher of any balk caused by a batter stepping out;
B) To create a penalty of 1 strike for the batter's actions - regardless of whether the ball was pitched or not, and regardless of whether the ball was pitched well (in or out of the strike zone).

This makes sense, and is coherent.

Then the rule came out.

Then someone else entirely read it strangely and wrote bizarre cases to create this 2-strike on 1 pitch nonsense.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Then someone else entirely read it strangely and wrote bizarre cases to create this 2-strike on 1 pitch nonsense.

There were a lot of bizarre interps during a certain Rules Editor's tenure, many of which were ignored by working umpires. Fortunately, most have been addressed and corrected.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Honestly, I do not believe the intent of any of these rules was to create 2 strikes on a single pitch. And I believe the horrifying way that these rules were written is entirely the culprit in all of this confusion.

I believe the intent of the rules makers was:
A) To absolve the pitcher of any balk caused by a batter stepping out;
B) To create a penalty of 1 strike for the batter's actions - regardless of whether the ball was pitched or not, and regardless of whether the ball was pitched well (in or out of the strike zone).

This makes sense, and is coherent.

Then the rule came out.

Then someone else entirely read it strangely and wrote bizarre cases to create this 2-strike on 1 pitch nonsense.

I don't think that's accurate, but it gets the point across.