Bob thanks for the historical information on this. I may bring this up to our state interpreter and see if he wants to nominate the change.

I'm using the 2012 & 2013 BRD and it states the same thing.

------------------------

I don't know how Chris handled this situation but I'll be interested to see how he did.

-Josh

MD,
If the batter steps out with both feet and the pitchers fails deliver the pitch, a strike is called on the batter.

1. If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or (c) holds up his hand to request "Time," it shall not be a balk. In (a) and (c), there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b) and (c), if the pitcher *legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live. Thus, two strikes are called on the batter in (b). If the umpire judges the batter's action to be a deliberate attempt to create a balk, he will penalize according to 3-3-1o.

In the bolded part, the rule states if the pitcher legally delivers the pitch, the pitch will be called a strike in either situatiion a, b, or c. Situation a is with one foot. That's what I am basing my answer on. If the pitcher did NOT deliver the pitch and the batter only stepped out with one foot, it would be a do over or anew.

Not the rule to which I was referring ... but ok.

That rule starts with:
This was not present in the OP. This part of the rule is to prevent a batter from stepping out and messing the pitcher up and CAUSING the pitch to not be a strike. Hence the awarding of a strike.

The OP did not mention anything along these lines. If the pitcher stopped or hesitated because of the batter stepping out, I would agree with you.

I'm confused.

I think the difference here is live-ball strike vs. dead-ball strike. If the pitcher hesitates because the batter stepped out with both feet (b), then we have a dead-ball strike. If (a) or (c) occurs, you have a violation by both the batter and pitcher and you wind up with a "re-do." If, by stepping out with one or both feet or holding up a hand to request time (a, b, or c), the pitcher is not affected and he delivers a legal pitch, that pitch is to be called a strike irregardless of the pitch's location and the ball remains live.

BTW, you cannot get two strikes on this play.

If the pitcher doesn't stop or hesitate his delivery, all you have is a pitch - none of these rules come into play. The very first sentence of the rule you keep quoting says, "If the pitcher stops or hesitates..."

The OP did not mention the pitcher stopping or hesitating at all... you're assuming the OP omitted something and then applying a rule where it doesn't belong.

Once again, I was relayed this situation so I am assuming the pitcher did not hesitate or stop and gave my opinion to that official.

I understand where people are coming from with this discussion. My only issue is that if the "If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery" he cannot possibly "legally delivers the ball", correct? As currently written, this rule is poorly worded.

Therefore, I read this as almost two separate clauses (Note I took liberty and changed the wording. The following is NOT the current rule).

One clause:

"If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or (c) holds up his hand to request "Time," it shall not be a balk. In (a) and (c), there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1."

Two clause:

If the pitcher, with a runner on base, legally delivers the ball despite the batter stepping out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or (c) holds up his hand to request "Time," it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live. Thus, two strikes are called on the batter in (b). If the umpire judges the batter's action to be a deliberate attempt to create a balk, he will penalize according to 3-3-1o."

As currently written, I don't see how the first part can coincident with the second part and make sense.

-Josh

I agree with you. Personally, I think the 2-strike on one pitch thing is rather nonsensical, as the pitcher has to both hesitate AND not hesitate.

They might as well mandate that you eject the coach immediately as well because I don't know many coaches that would have a clue and keep their cool (if I would dare call that)

-Josh

Time, runner goes to first. I'm not going to penalize the batter because the pitcher can't throw the ball over the plate.

Thanks
David

Fed 6-2-4____contains balk rules
Fed 6-2-4d__ is the specific F1 not delivering a pitch without hesitation balk.
Fed 6-2-4d-1 is the exception to the 6-2-4d balk...B’s illegal action causing F1 not to deliver the pitch without hesitation.

So if F1 never hesitates nor stops his delivery, why should anything in 6-2-4 apply?

You have 7-3-1 which suggests that if B has one foot in the BB he is legal.

But then CB 6.2.4H contradicts RB and says a penalty strike is to be called even when B has one foot in the BB and F1’s delivery is never even altered.

Then CB 6.2.4I calls for the double strike penalty, sometimes. If F1 delivers a pitch, two strikes. Again, why is 6-2-4d-1 invoked if F1’s delivery is never even altered. If B's illegal action causes F1 to stop his delivery, only one strike. WTF ???

There are way too many variables and too many conflicting RB/CB references for this not uncommon situation. These rules are a mess and need to be cleaned up into a simple/concise rule.

Suggestion: It is a ONE strike penalty if, with F1 in contact and B in BB, B steps out of BB with either foot without “Time” being granted before doing so. Make it a dead ball penalty so that D doesn’t suffer the results of a wild pitch caused by B’s illegal action.

Stepping out with one foot is not illegal. So that batter has not committed an illegal act. That would require changing the batter's box rule as well. This really isn't that common an occurrence.

Just as "hard cases make bad laws," unusual situations make bad rules.

I think it' s a real stretch to judge that the pitcher's wildness was caused by the batter's action. But maybe that's just me.

Yet, in 6.2.4H, B was charged a strike for one foot only (a) out of the BB.
No, 7-3-1 could stay as it is. 7-3-1 is generally intended for the time in between pitches. In essance a game speed up rule.
Agreed, but it is not an uncommon occurance...not the same thing. Every season I have a HS varsity B trying to disrupt F1's rhythm by asking for time/stepping out at inappropriate times. This is the kind of action that I believe Fed was trying to legislate against.
Agree. I would prefer to go with OBR rules for this offense, but Fed seemed to want to penalize B for stepping out at inappropriate times. They can keep the desired penalty for B mucking up play. They just need to tidy up the contradicting rules/CB plays.

Thanks, for making me re-read all the relevant rules. The issue here is that the pitch can't by rule happen if he hesitates in his delivery because by another rule the ball is dead. I get that. I think I understand the spirit and intent of the rule, 6-2-4. I agree that the case play seems to contradict both 6-2-4 and 7-3-1 because in the case play, F1 has not hesitated in his delivery. So in this instance and the original post, I think there is stick lying on the ground one end of which is shitty. I think the shitty end is call a pitch that is a ball a strike. If the pitcher hesitates, its easy: do over.