Batter Leaves the batter's box & HBP

[bluehair]

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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by bluehair

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.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Stepping out with one foot is not illegal.

Yet, in 6.2.4H, B was charged a strike for one foot only (a) out of the BB.

Originally Posted by tcarilli

That would require changing the batter's box rule as well.

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.

Originally Posted by tcarilli

This really isn't that common an occurrence.

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.

Originally Posted by tcarilli

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

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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by bluehair

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.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

If the pitcher hesitates, its easy: do over.

And it's pretty easy to say "he hesitated"...

JJ

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by bluehair

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.

It must be a regional thing. I can't remember the last time I saw that in an NFHS game. So, in my experience, it is uncommon. If you don't grant time willy-nilly the problem typically resolves itself.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

It must be a regional thing. I can't remember the last time I saw that in an NFHS game. So, in my experience, it is uncommon. If you don't grant time willy-nilly the problem typically resolves itself.

Perhaps its a regional thing. We have very competitive baseball here. It doesn't happen every game here, but it does happen from time to time. It must happen in other places, else Fed wouldn't have had the need to address it.

I don't grant time willy-nilly. My usual response to "Time" in this type of sitch is "NO". But not granting time does not make B's action retro-actively disappear. B has already done the inappropriate action.

Originally Posted by tcarilli

I think the shitty end is call a pitch that is a ball a strike. If the pitcher hesitates, its easy: do over.

That's how OBR handles it. Reset...Start again. I wouldn't have a problem doing it that way. But Fed wants to penalize B for initiating an absolved pitching infraction (F1 stopping or hesitating).

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Perhaps its a regional thing. We have very competitive baseball here. It doesn't happen every game here, but it does happen from time to time. It must happen in other places, else Fed wouldn't have had the need to address it.

As do we. Not sure why that matters.

Originally Posted by bluehair

I don't grant time willy-nilly. My usual response to "Time" in this type of sitch is "NO". But not granting time does not make B's action retro-actively disappear. B has already done the inappropriate action.

Didn't intend to suggest you did, I'm sorry for my use of the second person. I should have used the third person.

Originally Posted by bluehair

That's how OBR handles it. Reset...Start again. I wouldn't have a problem doing it that way. But Fed wants to penalize B for initiating an absolved pitching infraction (F1 stopping or hesitating).

Not it does not. 6-2-4 says "In (a) and (c), there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew." same as OBR.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Not it does not. 6-2-4 says "In (a) and (c), there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew." same as OBR.

Yes, if F1 stops or hesitates there is no penalty in 6-2-4d-1 (a) and (c) but then in CB 6.2.4I, there are penalties of one or two strikes called for B stepping out of BB. One is for violating 7-3-1 (both feet out...I get that one), but where do you get the other penalty strike when there is no stop or hesitation in 6.2.4I (a) and (c)? Too many contradictions in this rule/sitch.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Make it a dead ball penalty so that D doesn’t suffer the results of a wild pitch caused by B’s illegal action.

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.