Disconcerting pitcher

[teebob21]

This is also a potential out in NCAA - 11.20.1 -- but it's a delayed dead ball.

I assume this means we let the pitcher throw one pitch, then give the defense the option of the batter is out; or the result of the play.

I know what some people on the board think about stupid NCAA rules, and I tend to disagree, but I'll be damned if this isn't a stupid NCAA rule IMO.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by teebob21

This is also a potential out in NCAA - 11.20.1 -- but it's a delayed dead ball.

I assume this means we let the pitcher throw one pitch, then give the defense the option of the batter is out; or the result of the play.

I know what some people on the board think about stupid NCAA rules, and I tend to disagree, but I'll be damned if this isn't a stupid NCAA rule IMO.

What's stupid about it?

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by Manny A

What's stupid about it?

The delayed dead ball?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

The delayed dead ball?

NCAA recently changed all batter interference situations from an immediate dead ball to a delayed dead ball, so that it allows the defense to make a play more to its advantage. Suppose the catcher, despite the BI, is able to throw out a runner going from second to third. The defense would likely want the result of that play.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The violation occurred prior to the pitch. Why continue play after a violation that had nothing to do with any further play?

Maybe, maybe not. What if the batter does this as the pitcher already brings her hands together, and the pitcher is able to deliver the pitch?

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Manny A

NCAA recently changed all batter interference situations from an immediate dead ball to a delayed dead ball, so that it allows the defense to make a play more to its advantage. Suppose the catcher, despite the BI, is able to throw out a runner going from second to third. The defense would likely want the result of that play.



Maybe, maybe not. What if the batter does this as the pitcher already brings her hands together, and the pitcher is able to deliver the pitch?

My thought is that all INT should be an immediate dead ball. This isn't NBA basketball, we don't need continuation.

This sort of slippery slope leads to, "What if the batter punches the fielder in the face before she can catch the ball, and two runs score, but the defense retrieves the ball and gets the third out of the inning on a play at the plate to end the game?"

No, just NO. Say no to TWP situations. Make INT a dead ball again.

Also, the pitch doesn't start until the hands come apart.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by teebob21

My thought is that all INT should be an immediate dead ball. This isn't NBA basketball, we don't need continuation.

Agree. A long time ago, in a place unknown, a coach thought he got robbed of a double play. The coaches make the rules and this is the result.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by teebob21

My thought is that all INT should be an immediate dead ball. This isn't NBA basketball, we don't need continuation.

This is nothing new...in that other sport played with a smaller white ball. The delayed dead ball allows the defense to make a play on a runner and take the option of the play if it's to their benefit.

It's no different than umpire interference on a catcher's throw. Let it play out, and see if the defense is still able to retire the runner. If they do, why take that out away from them?

Yeah, I do think making this particular batter interference violation a delayed dead ball is rather strange, since the infraction would normally happen well before the pitch is delivered. Why wait?

Then again, I've always felt that an illegal pitch violation when a pitcher steps on the plate with her hands already together should be an immediate dead ball as well. Why wait for her to then separate her hands, look in for the signal, check her arm band, look back at her catcher, put her hands together, take a deep breath...

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Then again, I've always felt that an illegal pitch violation when a pitcher steps on the plate with her hands already together should be an immediate dead ball as well. Why wait for her to then separate her hands, look in for the signal, check her arm band, look back at her catcher, put her hands together, take a deep breath...

I've been taught to call the IP when you see it. In the case of the pitcher stepping onto the PP with hands together, I will call "Illegal Pitch!" as I stand up from my set position and move off to the side opposite the batter.

I cannot recall a time where the pitcher actually delivered a pitch.

So yes, it's still a DDB, but in the case you cited, very rarely might a pitch be thrown.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It's no different than umpire interference on a catcher's throw. Let it play out, and see if the defense is still able to retire the runner. If they do, why take that out away from them?

I disagree. I have the philosophy that INT by game participants should be penalized when it happens, and INT by game officials should be allowed to play out.

If you have umpire INT, it's literally no player's fault, so let 'em play and see what happens.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

What's stupid about it?

The violation occurred prior to the pitch. Why continue play after a violation that had nothing to do with any further play?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

This is also a potential out in NCAA - 11.20.1 -- but it's a delayed dead ball.

I assume this means we let the pitcher throw one pitch, then give the defense the option of the batter is out; or the result of the play.

I know what some people on the board think about stupid NCAA rules, and I tend to disagree, but I'll be damned if this isn't a stupid NCAA rule IMO.

So what if the PU signals DDB and then the pitcher throws an IP which the batter hits into a double play?

Or maybe the pitcher just doesn't pitch the ball in the allotted time?

Seems keeping the ball live could open up a lot of different issues. Not exactly keen on them referring to it as "interference" as it isn't even close to it.