Licked Fingers & Others...

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

He was quoting the casebook play, not the rule. Casebook says dead ball immediately

I am not crazy for thinking the rulebook and casebook differ on this. I actually had this call last night, and I called it dead immediately because that was the interpretation in the casebook.

I would say use the casebook because they are the interpretations of the rules from the ruling body. (Which is different than a source like a magazine, which is not by the ruling body).

[BlueDevilRef]

Rulebook supersedes casebook. An illegal pitch should be a delayed dead. Lots of things could happen that offense prefers rather than just the ball on batter and br's moving one base.

Just throw your left arm out straight, say illegal, and play from there.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I am not crazy for thinking the rulebook and casebook differ on this. I actually had this call last night, and I called it dead immediately because that was the interpretation in the casebook.

I would say use the casebook because they are the interpretations of the rules from the ruling body. (Which is different than a source like a magazine, which is not by the ruling body).

where is the disagreement?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

where is the disagreement?

The rulebook does not stated this is an immediate dead ball. The casebook situation is pretty clear that the umpires should rule this an immediate dead ball. That is where the disagreement comes in.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I've always been in the camp that if you have a pitching violation/infraction prior to the start of the pitch, you kill the ball immediately. A fair amount of pitchers will stop their action when they see that arm go out or hear the call.

IMO, no reason to complicate an already tenuous situation.

AFA the casebook is concerned, I consider that a post-rule publication interpretation, so yes, IMO an up to date casebook would carry the weight of the rule

[AtlUmpSteve]

For discussion purposes, let's consider the rationale behind the rule(s) in question.

The general rule of delayed dead ball rather than immediate dead ball is to not keep the offended party from a more favorable result. We also signal/call the offense when it occurs, so that the offending party realizes and isn't "tricked" into providing a more favorable opportunity. In that way, the balance between offense and defense remains.

When dealing with a "defaced" ball, or one with a "foreign substance", that adds an additional factor, one of potential safety. If you knew the ball had an illegal substance applied, and the ball got away from the pitcher (or a subsequent player) and a serious injury resulted, there is every possibility (and likely argument) that you, knowingly allowing that pitch, contributed to the cause of injury; folks, that's called liability, contributory negligence, and other legal terms I'm not wanting to hear applied.

Well, NFHS doesn't want that, either. In this specific case; you know a ball is "dosed", they want you to stop the pitch from happening if you can. No other form of illegal pitch relates to safety, they all amount to gaining an unfair advantage.

Get a bat removed as soon as you recognize it; do the same with an unsafe ball.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I've always been in the camp that if you have a pitching violation/infraction prior to the start of the pitch, you kill the ball immediately. A fair amount of pitchers will stop their action when they see that arm go out or hear the call.

IMO, no reason to complicate an already tenuous situation.

AFA the casebook is concerned, I consider that a post-rule publication interpretation, so yes, IMO an up to date casebook would carry the weight of the rule

What about allowing the offense to achieve a positive result? Other than the unsafe ball situation per Steve.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What about allowing the offense to achieve a positive result? Other than the unsafe ball situation per Steve.

The penalty IS a positive result. I'm talking about before the pitch starts. Why would the pitcher even bother since the situation cannot get any better for them? What are you going to do just stand there with your arm out for 20 seconds? Hell, the pitcher could have some fun and just drill the batter. Or throw it over the backstop. Why not, giving the offense a chance to hit the ball is not a smart option.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

For discussion purposes, let's consider the rationale behind the rule(s) in question.

The general rule of delayed dead ball rather than immediate dead ball is to not keep the offended party from a more favorable result. We also signal/call the offense when it occurs, so that the offending party realizes and isn't "tricked" into providing a more favorable opportunity. In that way, the balance between offense and defense remains.

When dealing with a "defaced" ball, or one with a "foreign substance", that adds an additional factor, one of potential safety. If you knew the ball had an illegal substance applied, and the ball got away from the pitcher (or a subsequent player) and a serious injury resulted, there is every possibility (and likely argument) that you, knowingly allowing that pitch, contributed to the cause of injury; folks, that's called liability, contributory negligence, and other legal terms I'm not wanting to hear applied.

Well, NFHS doesn't want that, either. In this specific case; you know a ball is "dosed", they want you to stop the pitch from happening if you can. No other form of illegal pitch relates to safety, they all amount to gaining an unfair advantage.

Get a bat removed as soon as you recognize it; do the same with an unsafe ball.

As a practical matter, moist fingers touching a softball is not a detriment to safety. This is not baseball; the ball is too big and too heavy for that little bit of moisture to have any material effect on the flight of the ball. In fact, it may be the opposite, since isn't the pitcher typically doing that to improve her grip?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

As a practical matter, moist fingers touching a softball is not a detriment to safety. This is not baseball; the ball is too big and too heavy for that little bit of moisture to have any material effect on the flight of the ball. In fact, it may be the opposite, since isn't the pitcher typically doing that to improve her grip?

I don't disagree; however, I understand the intent is for all similar offenses to be treated similarly, without assuming all within the rank and file can effectively judge which foreign substance may be safe and which might be unsafe.

Have you ever called men's fastpitch when they were applying pine tar? OMFG!!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Where is the NFHS rule cite for the pitcher having to pitch to at least one batter?

Is that before or after she licks her fingers?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I don't disagree; however, I understand the intent is for all similar offenses to be treated similarly, without assuming all within the rank and file can effectively judge which foreign substance may be safe and which might be unsafe.

Have you ever called men's fastpitch when they were applying pine tar? OMFG!!

Shouldn't the real point of the rule address the application of foreign substance to the ball?

Applying anything from saliva to gorilla gold to the fingers or hand doesn't do anything unless it is transferred to the ball. Getting a better grip on the ball is not forbidden.

Even if something is applied to the ball, from what I understand it is too large a sphere traveling too short a distance for anything that isn't obvious to affect the pitch.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The penalty IS a positive result. I'm talking about before the pitch starts. Why would the pitcher even bother since the situation cannot get any better for them? What are you going to do just stand there with your arm out for 20 seconds? Hell, the pitcher could have some fun and just drill the batter. Or throw it over the backstop. Why not, giving the offense a chance to hit the ball is not a smart option.

I'm not negating your view, but not convinced.
Isn't a base hit often a "more favorable" result and more likely than HBP, etc.? If giving the offense a chance to hit the ball is not smart, then doesn't that mean the offense can do something more favorable?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I'm not negating your view, but not convinced.
Isn't a base hit often a "more favorable" result and more likely than HBP, etc.? If giving the offense a chance to hit the ball is not smart, then doesn't that mean the offense can do something more favorable?

First you want positive and now a more favorable result. Why not just score the lead runner? Why lean toward a maximum possible punishment over some of the most trivial violations? Often, violations that have next to no, if any effect on the outcome of the game.

Call it, kill it, apply the rule effect and move on.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

....What are you going to do just stand there with your arm out for 20 seconds?....

Nope..As I drop to my set position at the start of the pitch, my left arm goes out and I say "illegal pitch" loud enough for the batter and catcher to hear.

If the pitcher stops her motion as a result of that, I'll kill it and award the IP penalty.