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

NCAA JUCO fall ball. I am PU. No base runners. 3-0 count, my partner calls an IP. The pitch is called a ball. The BR ran to first and rounded the base. While there was a play on her, she was not put out.

It got me thinking: on an IP for ball 4, if the BR is put out running after the base on balls, the offense would have the option to take the play or accept the penalty, in which case the BR would be awarded 1B. Correct?

Did the batter and every base runner advance at least one base safely? What is the effect of an illegal pitch in this situation?

No other R in OP, would all advance on the IP award, no relevance otherwise.

BR awarded 1st, anything after that is another play.

So if she advances past 1B, is it correct that she's not actually legally advancing, and cannot be put out? Is the ball dead due to the IP, or alive because a batter-runner is permitted to advance after a walk?

NCAA rules might be silly sometimes, but they often have the "what-if" scenario covered. Unfortunately there are two applicable what if scenarios listed that may apply.

The calling umpire is to wait to suspend play until the non-contacted pitch has reached the plate, or the play has been completed.

10.8 Effect #1: if the batter reaches 1B safely, and any other runners advance, the play stands and the IP is cancelled. (BR in jeopardy of being put out.)

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.

Look back rule? Would that apply?

No; in the real-world play, they threw behind the runner to 1B, and even in my imaginary scenario LBR does not apply to a walked BR who proceeds non-stop past 1B. I think the ruling is that the ball is dead as soon as it's called a ball.

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.

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.

The ball is still live and IMO the runner is in jeopardy if she elects to proceed farther than the award associated with the BOB. Otherwise, the "dead ball" would restrict the offended team from any advantage possibly available.

I would like to think Effect #4 pertains to the award of the fourth ball as a result of the application of an IP, not the pitch itself.

I see it differently. Nothing in #4 as written in the book (aside from your parenthetical addition) suggests the ball is dead, nor that the BR is not in jeopardy once passing first. Receiving ball 4, whether an illegal pitch or a legal pitch results in the BR being awarded first base; and it is still a delayed dead ball, so the ball remains alive. If the BR rounds past first, still live, she placed herself in jeopardy, and #1 still applies; she reached first safely, the IP is canceled.

Now, IF there were a runner on 2nd (or 3rd) that does not advance on the awarded base (walk), THEN you would keep the option to the offensive coach. Talk about a no risk 1st and third scenario on that walk!!

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.

Disagree??