IP and LBR

[SRW]

ASA Rules

R1 on 3B, R2 on 1B, 2 outs. 0-0 count, B5 at bat. F1 brings her hands together twice while in contact with the PP. PU calls an IP, and prior to releasing the ball, R2 leaves the base early. BU calls Dead Ball.

Ruling?

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by SRW

ASA Rules

R1 on 3B, R2 on 1B, 2 outs. 0-0 count, B5 at bat. F1 brings her hands together twice while in contact with the PP. PU calls an IP, and prior to releasing the ball, R2 leaves the base early. BU calls Dead Ball.

Ruling?

BU calls Dead Ball, NO PITCH! Pitch, legal or illegal, is negated. R2 is out. Count remains the same on the batter. 6.10.C and Effect.

WMB

[greymule]

Can't go with you on that one, WMB. I'd call illegal pitch.

[ronald]

If you remember a play from 5 years ago, you might agree with WMB.

The play happened in a girls FP national where there was catcher obstruction with the ball being hit to the SS who was interfered by a runner advancing from 2B to 3B. Ruling by phone from Bob Savoie was--interference superseded, canceled or whatever you wants to call it, obstruction by f2.

Seems like we have the same principle here-two competing violations. One has to be the top dog.

A) out. inning over. (Follows the logic of Bob Savoies' ruling)

Or

B) Option to the coach and advance the runners and a ball to batter or out and inning over

C) 10.1 Plate umpire decides cause ain't nothing in the rules to specifically cover a double violation detailed in the OP. You could sell this as you all make big bucks

But there is the precedence for interference supersedes obstruction. so, lbr violation cancels ip.

Guess you could marshal arguments for both sides. What do the head honchos in OK City say? That is all that matters. I say they opt for A as has WMB.


Ron

[greymule]

I remember the play from a few years ago. I don't see much of a parallel here. We know that a runner who is obstructed is not free to commit interference, but the cases the book cites are quite different (such as an obstructed runner interfering with a throw or running into a fielder).

Batter's swing that hits F2's glove still results in a hard liner that blindsides the runner from 1B as she is advancing to 2B. Do you supersede the OBS there?

But not only is the violation in the OP not interference, it is not even a LBR violation. It is simply the runner leaving the base before the pitcher releases the ball.

Suppose that F1, in her delivery, fails to release the ball on the first revolution of the windmill and instead goes around again and releases the ball on a second revolution. Illegal pitch is called. However, the runner on first left the bag after the ball would normally have been released, but before the release on the second, illegal, revolution. Obviously the running "violation" doesn't negate the IP.

I agree, however, that you can find evidence in the book for either ruling, but not conclusive evidence. So we need a case play, unless there is already one that I don't know about. In a code in which the offense can benefit when a runner deliberately clotheslines a fielder to prevent a double play, I'd never say I'm certain.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ronald

If you remember a play from 5 years ago, you might agree with WMB.

The play happened in a girls FP national where there was catcher obstruction with the ball being hit to the SS who was interfered by a runner advancing from 2B to 3B. Ruling by phone from Bob Savoie was--interference superseded, canceled or whatever you wants to call it, obstruction by f2.

Seems like we have the same principle here-two competing violations. One has to be the top dog.

A) out. inning over. (Follows the logic of Bob Savoies' ruling)

Or

B) Option to the coach and advance the runners and a ball to batter or out and inning over

C) 10.1 Plate umpire decides cause ain't nothing in the rules to specifically cover a double violation detailed in the OP. You could sell this as you all make big bucks

But there is the precedence for interference supersedes obstruction. so, lbr violation cancels ip.

Guess you could marshal arguments for both sides. What do the head honchos in OK City say? That is all that matters. I say they opt for A as has WMB.

Not comparable. And you cannot use Rule 10 for everything, especially when it is specifically addressed in 8.5.B.Effect.Note2 which states that an interference violation takes precedence over ANY obstruction enforcement.

In the play at hand, WMB is correct that the LBR effects a "no pitch". However, I think there could be an extenuating circumstance that could have caused the IP to be called and negate the LBR.

[ronald]

I think I defined clearly how the two plays are comparable. I never implied that the particulars were comparable. The particulars do not negate the truthfulness of the statement below.

Both cases have a violation by the defense and then one by the offense on a given play. I hope we agree on that.

Ron

[CecilOne]

The IP is a DDB, but the leave-early is an IDB. It seems to me it matters which happens first. If the leave-early happens before the second touch by F1, it's a dead ball so nothing else can happen, including the IP. If the IP happens first, the IP penalty is applied to all runners, even the leave-early. The IP rules exist to avoid deception of the batter and runners; so "without liability to be put out" applies.

Umpire judgement determines the sequence, probably an interesting conference.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The IP is a DDB, but the leave-early is an IDB. It seems to me it matters which happens first. If the leave-early happens before the second touch by F1, it's a dead ball so nothing else can happen, including the IP. If the IP happens first, the IP penalty is applied to all runners, even the leave-early. The IP rules exist to avoid deception of the batter and runners; so "without liability to be put out" applies.

Umpire judgement determines the sequence, probably an interesting conference.

I would agree with Cecils take, so it would have to be worked out with your partner as to which was first. 6.10.c is not the end all answer to this scenario, judgment must be in play. There is a sequence, and that sequence must be ruled on because there are infractions by both teams.

[wadeintothem]

I had a IP yesterday, the pitcher did the double touch and on the double touch actually said "wait" and stopped the pitch.

Hopefully no one is implying that if a runner had taken off when she said "wait", we would have LBR. That'd be a good way to pop off some runners.. get some timing going on, then when you have wheels on.. mid pitch, IP, tricking the runner.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

In the play at hand, WMB is correct that the LBR effects a "no pitch". However, I think there could be an extenuating circumstance that could have caused the IP to be called and negate the LBR.

If you have a violation by the defense (IP), how can that be negated by a violation by the offense (LBR)?

Seems to me you'd have somewhat of a timing thing...one happened before the other. Once you declare an illegal pitch, can you now take it back just because the runner stepped off? The batter wasn't given an opportunity to hit the ball....

[Dakota]

First, taking the OP at face value (i.e. adding nothing not stated - e.g. nothing said about a hesitation or stop), a double touch is just that - a double touch. It may confuse the timing of the batter, but not likely the runner.

Second, the IP is, as already pointed out, a delayed dead ball. "PU calls an IP" means what, exactly? If it is "called" properly, it means the DDB was signaled. This does NOT take the runner off the hook, since the ball is still live.

Third, the runner leaving early is a dead ball, runner out. The IP was not completed, hence it is moot.

I agree with WMB.

[Skahtboi]

The correct call on a runner leaving early is "no pitch." While I understand the desire to call the infractions as they occurred, ie IP occurring before the runner left early, doesn't it stand to reason that a call of "no pitch" means just that, illegal or legal?

If I follow that reasoning, I would have to call the runner out, and not enforce the IP. Not the most popular call, I know. I would like the hear what the NUS has to say about this.

[wadeintothem]

Generally speaking (not in terms of the OP's scenario):

What I am wondering is where some of you are getting "pitch or illegal pitch".

One of the purposes of IP is to prevent deception giving the defense an advantage. That includes runners and batters being disadvantaged by the pitcher.

LBR is not INT. It is a completely separate rule. I think some rules are being mixed here. I dont think LBR negates IP in all instances.

6.10.c or LBR doesnt say "pitch or illegal pitch"

[wadeintothem]

I'll put it this way, you gotta use common sense.

In general, if the IP deceived the runner into committing LBR (in your judgment), then you would enforce the IP. If the runner just left early, you would enforce the LBR.