What Am I Missing?

argodad

Perusing the November issue of Referee magazine, I took a look at the softball Case Plays.

In the second one, F1 commits an illegal pitch and R1 then leaves first "just before the pitch is released." Jay Miner's answer is that you basically ignore the leaving early and enforce the IP. (If the batter puts the ball in play, the OC gets to choose the play or the penalty, plus any other enforcements, depending on the code).

I think that as soon as the BU sees R1 leaving early and says, "No Pitch!" then any further action is moot. Ball on the batter and all runners advance one base.

Am i missing something?

youngump

argodad wrote
Perusing the November issue of Referree magazine, I took a look at the softball Case Plays.

In the second one, F1 commits an illegal pitch and R1 then leaves first "just before the pitch is released." Jay Miner's answer is that you basically ignore the leaving early and enforce the IP. (If the batter puts the ball in play, the OC gets to choose the play or the penalty, plus any other enforcements, depending on the code).

I think that as soon as the BU sees R1 leaving early and says, "No Pitch!" then any further action is moot. Ball on the batter and all runners advance one base.

Am i missing something?

No. Amateur Softball Association of America (ASA)
________
Nexium Lawyer

Skahtboi

argodad wrote
Perusing the November issue of Referree magazine, I took a look at the softball Case Plays.

In the second one, F1 commits an illegal pitch and R1 then leaves first "just before the pitch is released." Jay Miner's answer is that you basically ignore the leaving early and enforce the IP. (If the batter puts the ball in play, the OC gets to choose the play or the penalty, plus any other enforcements, depending on the code).

I think that as soon as the BU sees R1 leaving early and says, "No Pitch!" then any further action is moot. Ball on the batter and all runners advance one base.

Am i missing something?

Referee Magazine has a notorious history of messing up softball case plays. Anything you read there, take with a grain of salt. Then, pull out the books and investigate.

Snocatzdad

What if the illegal pitch ruling precedes the left early in the following manner

Pitcher does two windmills (runner leaves on what they thought was release on first windmill ASA 6.3.D) In that case the illegal pitch causes them to leave early and I believe it would be correct to allow the offense to choose the results of the play.

I guess the crux is that it's likely for the pitch to be illegal before release so it's possible that the infraction on the pitch is prior to the infraction on the base.

I would think minimally you would allow the offense to choose the result of the play or a ball and runners advance. With that result being that you called the runner on base out for leaving early and they probably wouldn't want to keep that result and would take the ball and advancement.

robbie

Snocatzdad wrote
What if the illegal pitch ruling precedes the left early in the following manner

Pitcher does two windmills (runner leaves on what they thought was release on first windmill ASA 6.3.D) In that case the illegal pitch causes them to leave early and I believe it would be correct to allow the offense to choose the results of the play.

I guess the crux is that it's likely for the pitch to be illegal before release so it's possible that the infraction on the pitch is prior to the infraction on the base.

I would think minimally you would allow the offense to choose the result of the play or a ball and runners advance. With that result being that you called the runner on base out for leaving early and they probably wouldn't want to keep that result and would take the ball and advancement.

Your 4th paragraph answered your question (statement) in paragraph 2.

Result of play is dead ball, runner out for leaving early. Your choice coach..................

Snocatzdad

Your right, I misread the initial post. I though he was saying as soon as he saw movement on the runner "No pitch" and called runner out despite illegal pitch.

Steve M

Didn't we talk about this a couple of years ago?

youngump

Snocatzdad wrote
Your right, I misread the initial post. I though he was saying as soon as he saw movement on the runner "No pitch" and called runner out despite illegal pitch.

So did I. Consequently, when I said you weren't missing anything I was wrong. The runner is out despite the illegal pitch. See the linked case play (which is why we discussed this last year).
________
HotBellaXXX

Dakota

robbie wrote
Your 4th paragraph answered your question (statement) in paragraph 2.

Result of play is dead ball, runner out for leaving early. Your choice coach..................

Speaking ASA, according to the interpretation linked to above by youngump, the coach's choice option does not nullify the runner being out for leaving early. That out stands, regardless. And, since the leaving early resulted in a dead ball, there are no other aspects of the play to be considered. If there are other runners, they receive the base award, and the batter is awarded a ball. The runner who left early is out.

Also, argodad, what you were missing was the credibility of Referee on softball rulings is worse than your average coach.

Did Referee specify a specific rule book?

IRISHMAFIA

Dakota wrote
Also, argodad, what you were missing was the credibility of Referee on softball rulings is worse than your average coach.

Is it Referee or .......?

CecilOne

Dakota;Did [I wrote
Referee [/I]specify a specific rule book?

Given the writer, probably OBR.

The subtlety some are missing is the timing of when the ball becomes dead. An IP is normally a delayed dead, so the "leave early" applies as the ball is still live until that infraction, even if the IP is committed first.
The other side is an IP that is IDB, like the 20 second limit. If that occurs, it could be before the "leave early".

OK, my question is whether a "no pitch" can be treated as an IP if the pitch didn't occur? IOW, which takes precedence?

IRISHMAFIA

CecilOne wrote
OK, my question is whether a "no pitch" can be treated as an IP if the pitch didn't occur? IOW, which takes precedence?

Speaking ASA.

The pitching violation occurred prior to the running violation.

When in IP is called, it is DDB. The runner left early prior to the release of a live ball.

I believe your question fails to recognize is that an IP does not require a pitch to be thrown, therefore the subsequent "no pitch" status of the ball is irrelevant.

IOW, enforce both. Below is from the March 2008 Rules Clarification on the ASA Umpire web page:

PLAY: R1 on 1B and no count on B2. F1 commits an illegal pitch, by bringing the hands together a second time, which is called by the plate umpire, but continues the pitch. Just before releasing the ball R1 leaves the base before the release of the pitch. In (a) B1 does not swing at the pitch. In (b) B1 swings at the pitch and gets a base hit. In (c) R1 is on 1B and R2 is on 3B at the start of the play.

RULING: The illegal pitch happened when the pitcher brought their hands together, paused, the hands separated to begin the pitch, then the hands came back together prior to the release of the pitch. In (a) and (b) the ball became dead when R1 left 1B before the pitch was released. The fact that the batter did not swing in (a) or got a hit in (b) is irrelevant because the ball became dead when R1 left 1B early.

Enforce both the leaving early and illegal pitch infractions, The Ball is dead and R1 is out and a ball is awarded to B2. In (c) The plate umpire should call illegal pitch when it occurs and then “dead ball” when R1 leaves 1B too soon. R1 is out, R2 is awarded home and B2 is awarded a ball in the count.

CecilOne

IRISHMAFIA wrote
Speaking ASA.

The pitching violation occurred prior to the running violation.

When in IP is called, it is DDB. The runner left early prior to the release of a live ball.

I believe your question fails to recognize is that an IP does not require a pitch to be thrown, therefore the subsequent "no pitch" status of the ball is irrelevant.

IOW, enforce both. .

No, I certainly know that an IP does not have to be thrown. The OP and other cases have the pitch being released. My comment was just about those IP which are IDB, rather than DDB. Whether it is thrown or not, is it a pitch and therefore an IP, if it is declared a "no pitch"?

"The fact that the batter did not swing in (a) or got a hit in (b) is irrelevant because the ball became dead when R1 left 1B early."

Comments for all codes accepted.

Snocatzdad

youngump wrote
So did I. Consequently, when I said you weren't missing anything I was wrong. The runner is out despite the illegal pitch. See the linked case play (which is why we discussed this last year).

What would stop a Defensive Coach from instructing his pitcher to throw a double windmill once a game with a runner on 1B know that the runner will likely leave early on the first expected release point and the only penalty is a ball on the batter and likely chance to get runner called out for leaving early.

robbie

Snocatzdad wrote
What would stop a Defensive Coach from instructing his pitcher to throw a double windmill once a game with a runner on 1B know that the runner will likely leave early on the first expected release point and the only penalty is a ball on the batter and likely chance to get runner called out for leaving early.

My thought exactly.

If the referenced case plat truely is ASA's ruling - they sure have a hole in the rules and a case play that directly contradicts the rules as written.

IRISHMAFIA

robbie wrote
My thought exactly.

If the referenced case plat truely is ASA's ruling - they sure have a hole in the rules and a case play that directly contradicts the rules as written.

No, I just made that up and blamed it on ASA 🙄

Can you be more specific as to your concern?

IRISHMAFIA

CecilOne wrote
No, I certainly know that an IP does not have to be thrown. The OP and other cases have the pitch being released. My comment was just about those IP which are IDB, rather than DDB. Whether it is thrown or not, is it a pitch and therefore an IP, if it is declared a "no pitch"?

An IP is a violation of a rule, not necessarily the act of "pitching" the ball. Since there does not need to be a pitch for a violation to be effected, how would a declaration of "no pitch" negate something that does not require it to be a pitch to begin.

Steve was right, we did discuss this before and beat it to death. I haven't checked, but it is quite possible the ASA Rule Clarification came directly from the discussion on this board. That has occurred a few times over the past three years.

"The fact that the batter did not swing in (a) or got a hit in (b) is irrelevant because the ball became dead when R1 left 1B early."

Comments for all codes accepted.

ASA has answered 😉:cool:

Dakota

IRISHMAFIA wrote
...Can you be more specific as to your concern?

I think he is concerned about this kind of thing: R1 on 1B. DC intentionally calling for an IP of the type designed to fake the runner into leaving early (such as a double windmill). Cost: ball on the batter; benefit: R1 out. Maximum downside if R1 doesn't bite: R1 on 2B.

RKBUmp

Wouldnt this type of play fall unders USC? Would be similar to a coach trying to have his pitcher use the 20 second time out to purposely walk a batter rather than legally deliver the pitches as required under the rules. The coach is attempting to use 1 rule to circumvent another to their advantage.

If the pitcher has been legal the entire game, but is suddenly illegal with a double windmill with a runner on base, he may get the first call, but should also come with a warning that if it happens again hes getting the USC call.

IRISHMAFIA

Bob Newhart: Hello? Oh, hello, is this the Third World?
Phone Voice: Why, yes sir, it is. However, some day we are going to be #2, We Try Harder!
Bob Newhart: Really? You guys have rental car companies?
Phone Voice: Of course, we do, we are the Third World, not the Lost World. Why do you ask?
Bob Newhart: Nevermind, that isn't why I called.
Phone Voice: Then why did you call?
Bob Newhart: Well, I was just wondering around this web site of the goofy folks who think the know how to umpire softball games. You know, sometimes I wonder where they ever came up with some of the moves they make flailing their arms all over t....
Phone Voice: Sir...SIR!!!...the reason you called?
Bob Newhart: Oh, sorry. Well, I came across this simple little play and there were real simple answer and then one of your guys snuck in there somehow and I just hate seeing people beat the hell out of some Third World Play.