Had a fellow blue call me with the following situation that happened at a ASA 14U Tourney this past weekend while he was calling the plate.

Runners on 1st and 3rd. Coach calls time to confer with his batter and base runners. Play is set, as the pitcher goes into her windup the batter steps out of the box causing the pitcher to stop in mid pitch. Fellow blue calls "No Pitch" and resets. 3rd base coach goes ballistic saying his runner should advance to home on the illegal pitch. After much "conversation" the original call stands.
I told him he made the proper call and refer to rule 6-10E.
The case book has a simular ruling under 6F.10-2.
Your thoughts?

Certainly sounds like there was a real possibility they set this up. No pitch is the correct call, with a warning to the coach.

Definitely agree that this is a good call. The batter caused the pitcher to stop by stepping out of the box without being granted "time."

Agree, no pitch. Now if that happens & the pitcher does throw, it's a strike if it's anywhere near the zone.

Yep, I agree; and I would make sure that he got the word that if it happened again, both he and his batter would be gone.

SamC

It never ceases to amaze me the ridiculous lengths some coaches will go to try and beat the system.

No pitch. I call no pitch even if the pitcher reacts to something the batter does that <i>looks</i> as if the batter is not ready. I will not let the batter cause the pitcher to commit that violation.

Regarding the play described, MLB stopped calling that play a balk almost 40 years ago. I remember why, too. Hal Woodeshick of the Astros came in to relieve against the Pirates with the score tied in the bottom of the ninth and the bases loaded. Woodeshick proceeded to strike out the first two batters (I believe on 6 pitches), then got 2 quick strikes on Roberto Clemente. As Woodeshick was about to deliver his next pitch, Clemente put his hand up as if to say, "Hold on, I'm not ready." Woodeshick held up and was called for a game-ending balk. MLB changed the rule shortly after that.

Why was time even called ?
 

Please explain "mid pitch". I take this to mean that the pitcher is in the process of pitching and her hands are already seperated. Therefore no time should even be thought about being granted. Sounds like the umpire sorta created his or her own mess. Otherwise I have to aggree with the general thoughts of the other posts.

Re: Why was time even called ?
 

TIME was not granted. The umpire created no mess. The pitcher had stopped "mid pitch" (which I took to mean sometime after the start and before the end). A NO PITCH was declared, which is exactly right. ASA 6FP-10E.

Gotta agree. No pitch. Warning to the coach to stop it.

Add me to the agree with the call category.

What about rules 7.3.A and 7.3.C? Batter had to be inside the batters box with both feet prior to the pitch according to 7.3.A. In 7.3.C it says she can step out with one foot BETWEEN pitches. But this batter is described as stepping out DURING the pitch, and her action delayed play. None of the listed exceptions allowing her to leave the box apply to this situation. Would this situation justify calling a strike against the batter or at least giving a warning?

justmom,

One thing an umpire has to do which is sometimes difficult is judge intent. In fact it is usually very easy to judge, or very difficult, yet still must be done.

A key point is in 7-3-C EFFECT, and that is the batter delaying play.

6-10-E deals with anyone employing tactics to cause the pitcher to commit an illegal pitch.

Several knowledgable umpires chimed in here and all see (as well as I, knowledgeable or not!) an attempt by the batter to cause an illegal pitch. There is the intent judgement, which only allows you to invoke rule 6,not 7. Rule 6 does have more teeth though because a continued act can warrant an ejection of player, coach or both.

JEL:

I don't see where Rule 7 says anything about intent (like rule 6 does). But, I see what you mean about Rule 6 having more teeth. Either way, this umpire made the correct call because the ultimate effect on the play would be the same...a dead ball, and definitely NOT an illegal pitch.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that I thought both rules were broken. In breaking Rule 6.10E, the act they committed was to violate Rule 7.3C. I guess it just goes to show that if a coach wants to try to BEND the rules he should KNOW the rules inside and out, because shady tactics like this example usually come back to bite!

[Edited by justmom on Jul 9th, 2004 at 11:43 AM]