Illegal pitch, ball 4 - BR advances and is put out

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by teebob21

10.8 Effect #4: If ball four is an IP, the BR is awarded 1B, and any other runners are advanced one base. (BR not in jeopardy of being put out, ball is dead.)

I think the intent of the rule is that #4 applies here, and we kill it after the non-contacted pitch, even if the IP/ball 4 is a wild pitch. I might be wrong.

Just to verify (not doubting), I checked the rule. Under 10.8, where is the ball dead? To me, that rule says: "if the coach takes the option of the illegal pitch, and if that award is ball 4 on the batter, then the batter is awarded first and runners advance." For example, with R2 and 3-1 count and the illegal pitch is a strike of some type (called, foul ball, take your pick). The illegal pitch now becomes ball four. BR to first, R2 to third.

But, on the same 3-1 count with R2, the illegal pitch is called a ball. BR is awarded first on ball four, the ball is still live until the conclusion of the play, including the BR being thrown out after rounding first. The offense would then have the option IF R2 didn't advance a base.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Just to verify (not doubting), I checked the rule. Under 10.8, where is the ball dead? To me, that rule says: "if the coach takes the option of the illegal pitch, and if that award is ball 4 on the batter, then the batter is awarded first and runners advance." For example, with R2 and 3-1 count and the illegal pitch is a strike of some type (called, foul ball, take your pick). The illegal pitch now becomes ball four. BR to first, R2 to third.

But, on the same 3-1 count with R2, the illegal pitch is called a ball. BR is awarded first on ball four, the ball is still live until the conclusion of the play, including the BR being thrown out after rounding first. The offense would then have the option IF R2 didn't advance a base.

Here is the language in 10.8 prior to listing the scenarios and the outcomes for each:

"Simultaneously, the umpire gives the delayed dead-ball signal and waits to suspend play until the non-contacted pitch has reached the plate, or the play has been completed. Assuming no other violation has occurred (for example, leaving early):"

While not explicitly stating so, a non-contacted pitch results in a dead ball once it has reached the plate. I've never worked NCAA, but a similar scenario is a runner a runner trying to steal a base (regardless of the count) and the pitch is illegal. Even though the attempt to steal a base is still in progress and thus a play is ongoing, the explanation that was given was that ball is dead on the non-contacted pitch because that part of the rule takes precedence. I guess the idea is not to put the defense in jeopardy of trying to make an attempt to retire a runner that would be awarded the base she is trying to advance to anyway. I don't know if that is right or not, but that is what was discussed between two umpires I was sitting near during a meeting.

If that ruling is correct, I would say that the application of this to the OP results in the ball being dead because it was a non-contacted illegal pitch. I'll restate that I don't know if this is the right ruling or the right reasoning for the ruling, but hopefully it adds something to the conversation.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

Here is the language in 10.8 prior to listing the scenarios and the outcomes for each:

"Simultaneously, the umpire gives the delayed dead-ball signal and waits to suspend play until the non-contacted pitch has reached the plate, or the play has been completed. Assuming no other violation has occurred (for example, leaving early):"

While not explicitly stating so, a non-contacted pitch results in a dead ball once it has reached the plate. I've never worked NCAA, but a similar scenario is a runner a runner trying to steal a base (regardless of the count) and the pitch is illegal. Even though the attempt to steal a base is still in progress and thus a play is ongoing, the explanation that was given was that ball is dead on the non-contacted pitch because that part of the rule takes precedence. I guess the idea is not to put the defense in jeopardy of trying to make an attempt to retire a runner that would be awarded the base she is trying to advance to anyway. I don't know if that is right or not, but that is what was discussed between two umpires I was sitting near during a meeting.

If that ruling is correct, I would say that the application of this to the OP results in the ball being dead because it was a non-contacted illegal pitch. I'll restate that I don't know if this is the right ruling or the right reasoning for the ruling, but hopefully it adds something to the conversation.

I think the "OR" is rather important.

Sit 1: If a runner is stealing, there is still a play. R1 steals second and the ball is thrown into center field, allowing the runner to advance to third. In this case, the coach has an option.

Sit 2: The pitch is (in and of itself) ball four - the batter awarded first is still the "play".

FWIW, I have never been instructed, not even remotely, to kill a non-contacted illegal pitch, and surprised it has never come up until now.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

Here is the language in 10.8 prior to listing the scenarios and the outcomes for each:

"Simultaneously, the umpire gives the delayed dead-ball signal and waits to suspend play until the non-contacted pitch has reached the plate, or the play has been completed. Assuming no other violation has occurred (for example, leaving early):"

While not explicitly stating so, a non-contacted pitch results in a dead ball once it has reached the plate. I've never worked NCAA, but a similar scenario is a runner a runner trying to steal a base (regardless of the count) and the pitch is illegal. Even though the attempt to steal a base is still in progress and thus a play is ongoing, the explanation that was given was that ball is dead on the non-contacted pitch because that part of the rule takes precedence. I guess the idea is not to put the defense in jeopardy of trying to make an attempt to retire a runner that would be awarded the base she is trying to advance to anyway. I don't know if that is right or not, but that is what was discussed between two umpires I was sitting near during a meeting.

If that ruling is correct, I would say that the application of this to the OP results in the ball being dead because it was a non-contacted illegal pitch. I'll restate that I don't know if this is the right ruling or the right reasoning for the ruling, but hopefully it adds something to the conversation.

I'm with Big Slick on that one; you still have a live play on this non-contacted pitch which doesn't end until the ball is in the circle in pitcher possession and all/any runners are stopped on a base (and everyone forced to advance actually has advanced), or, someone mistakenly calls "time" before that has happened.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm with Big Slick on that one; you still have a live play on this non-contacted pitch which doesn't end until the ball is in the circle in pitcher possession and all/any runners are stopped on a base (and everyone forced to advance actually has advanced), or, someone mistakenly calls "time" before that has happened.

That's cool. This is an issue I'm really on board with whatever the consensus opinion is. I just relayed the discussion that I had overheard in an attempt to add some information that might be helpful. If anyone interpreted my previous post as a statement of fact or what the ruling should be, please don't do so.