Licked Fingers & Others...

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by blueump

But according to the case book the umpire is to "declare the ball dead immediately" - the word immediately doesn't seem to allow time for the pitcher to then go through all the steps and release the pitch.

So, if she licks her fingers and begins the process of pitching, do I kill it or let her throw it?

CALLING an illegal pitch immediately (or declaring) is not the same as immediate dead ball. See 6.1.1 penalty, NFHS.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

CALLING an illegal pitch immediately (or declaring) is not the same as immediate dead ball. See 6.1.1 penalty, NFHS.

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

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

Rule book supercedes the casebook, no?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

Rule book supercedes the casebook, no?

Unless it is giving interpretation/direction of how to apply the rule.

Personally, I believe this to be a completely useless rule left over from 20th century baseball. Licking one's fingers and touching the ball has zero effect to the ball or pitch.

[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).

[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.