Licked Fingers & Others...
 

Question 1 - When a pitcher licks her fingers and goes directly to the ball, 6-1-1 and 6-2-2 (and the dead ball table) tells us to immediately call an illegal pitch (before the pitch is thrown) but use the delayed dead ball signal??? Am I reading this correctly?

Question 2 - There is an umpire in our league that insists on warning the pitchers that lick their fingers for "defacing the ball" and threatens ejections if they continue. Besides calling an illegal pitch as found in 6-2-2, I can't find anything that supports this in the case or rule book.

Question 3 - With the recent implementation of the "number system" of signs in our area, it's obvious that many pitchers are not taking or simulate the taking of signs while on the rubber. They stand behind the rubber, the coach calls the number, they check their armband then step forward to engage the pitching plate. Is this picking buggers or is it something that needs to be called?

In #1, yes, it is delayed bc the offense can always hit an illegal pitch.

#2-I don't know of a rule that would allow for ejection in this case. I'd get direction on it from assignor and probably let that guy die on that hill alone. That is pretty far fetched
#3-I would just talk to player and coach about it. Simple fix is for her to step on rubber and take the sign.

BlueDevil covered 1 and 2. I need a bit more information in order to address 3.

Is the pitcher stepping onto the pitchers plate and immediately going into her pitching motion? If so, then this is illegal and needs to be called.

Even if she already has her "signal" or knows what she is going to throw, she must step onto the PP, Pause with her hands separated, and look at the catcher.

The purpose of this piece of the pitching rule has nothing to do with where she actually gets her signal from, it is for the batter to know that she is getting into position to pitch.

Why do we add "look at the catcher"? The rule requires a pause for batter's to know timing, we acknowledge she can get the signal from anywhere (even multiple signals from multiple places to lessen "stealing" the signal), and even that the signal can be verbal. With all the being the case, how do we equate "take or simulate taking" to require looking at the catcher?

Pitchers do NOT have to actually take the sign on the pitching plate, just simulate doing it. Any PAUSE on the plate with hands separated is interpreted and accepted as SIMULATING. It's just about not deceiving the batter with a quick pitch, stepping on and pitching all at once.

Fed requires taking or simulating taking the sign from the catcher. 6-1-1b.
ASA only requires taking or simulating taking a sign, but doesn't specify from where.

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.

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

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.

OK; again, what says she has to look at the catcher to simulate to take a signal? Can the catcher verbalize a signal? Not saying she has to, but if she COULD, then looking at the catcher, whether you see, hear, or she uses telemetry, is NOT a rule requirement.

The PAUSE after stepping on and engaging the pitcher's plate, and before bringing the hands together is the only absolute rule requirement I see in NFHS, ASA, and most clearly in NCAA. And the only part that makes sense to me.

Funny thing is, had this exact situation tonight. Never even really discussed it previously in a game but partner wanted to enforce it. For some reason, the coach got upset and after being difficult about it, got herself restricted to dugout for the game. It's a simple rule. I still can't figure out why she was upset. Just thought it interesting we have discussed it here and then it happens in a game.

If they would just say that AND enforce it.

What, change a rule be make more sense????? :eek:

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!!

Is that before or after she licks her fingers? :D

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.

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.

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.

Are you going to a set if the pitcher just stands there?

If hands are not yet together, I'm with you; kill it. If she steps off or separates without a pitch, she abandoned the pitch.

If the pitcher has brought her hands together and is still on the pitchers plate, I'm waiting, as she has neither started a pitch nor abandoned the pitch sequence. After 10 seconds (5 in NCAA), she has created a 2nd illegal pitch, but that hardly matters.