IP and LBR
 

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

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

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 Ruling by phone from Bob Savoie was--interference superseded, canceled or whatever you wants to call it, obstruction by f2.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:p

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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"

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.

First, it was not a LBR violation. The applicable rule is 8-7-S, not 8-7-T.

Second, you are assuming the IP "drew" the runner off the base with the double touch - facts not in evidence, and (without your hesitation, etc.) unlikely, IMO. I do agree that if it is judged that the runner left early because of being deceived by the illegal pitch motion, fine. Lacking that, however, the runner is out.

The IP call is a DDB and will be rendered moot because the leaving early violation is a dead ball and a "No pitch" - you can't have an illegal no pitch.

That is incorrect Dakota, I specifically stated that I was not addressing the OP's scenario.


Then we agree, and that is my point.

I agree (as adjusted)! ;)

The batter doesn't need to have the opportunity to hit the ball to enforce an LBR.

Personally, I don't see why both violations cannot/can not/can't be enforced in the order which they occurred. However, then you get into the "how can you have an IP when, by rule, there was "no pitch" argument.

In spite of Dakota's "facts not in evidence" issue, there is something that is not in evidence, but doesn't mean it did not happen.

What would you do if the pitcher saw the DDB signal and completely stopped or stepped back off the PP? Would the PU not kill the play since no pitch is imminent? If this happened, a runner may not be ruled out via LBR depending on the timing of the action.

That idea was what was behind my questioning of what "called the IP" meant. If the PU killed the play, then there is no leaving early violation, since the ball is dead.

As I said earlier, IMO, if the judgment is that the IP "drew" the runner off the base, then enforce the IP and not the leaving early.

Apart from that, though, an ordinary IP (say, for example, leaping) would be rendered moot by the runner leaving early.

From ASA Umpire web page (Clarifications)

PLAY: R1 on 1B and no count on B2. F1 commits an illegal pitch, by bringing the hands together a second time, which is called by the plate umpire, but continues the pitch. Just before releasing the ball R1 leaves the base before the release of the pitch. In (a) B1 does not swing at the pitch. In (b) B1 swings at the pitch and gets a base hit. In (c) R1 is on 1B and R2 is on 3B at the start of the play.

RULING: The illegal pitch happened when the pitcher brought their hands together, paused, the hands separated to begin the pitch, then the hands came back together prior to the release of the pitch. In (a) and (b) the ball became dead when R1 left 1B before the pitch was released. The fact that the batter did not swing in (a) or got a hit in (b) is irrelevant because the ball became dead when R1 left 1B early. Enforce both the leaving early and illegal pitch infractions, The Ball is dead and R1 is out and a ball is awarded to B2. In (c) The plate umpire should call illegal pitch when it occurs and then “dead ball” when R1 leaves 1B too soon. R1 is out, R2 is awarded home and B2 is awarded a ball in the count.
Rule 8, Section 7-S, Effect, Rule 6, Section 3-B, Effect-A Illegal Pitch

Call them both!

Call them both!

That makes sense, unless the IP is of the type that causes the runner to leave early (like releasing on a second full revolution, or hanging onto the ball at the point where she would normally have delivered).

I sure hope Kevin was thinking a one umpire system when he wrote this play result. I don't think anyone wants the plate umpire making the call on a runner leaving too soon whenever there is a base umpire.

Hi SRW,

The way I see it the inning is over because during a DDB the ball is still live so if an umpire sees an infraction, as the base umpire did in this case, he or she makes the call. In this case the call is an IDB and the 3rd out. ..Al

wow.....

I can live with that. Thanks.

its definately problem solved..

Sounds like an Illegal Pitch :o

I've got an ilegal pitch, it happens before the runners would have started. So they would have left the base after the ilegal pitch should have been called.

So am I correct in understanding that the correct call, with two outs, would be:

DDB on the illegal pitch

IDB on the runner leaving early

this is the third out of inning

no enforcement on illegal pitch since third out was made?

ASA already said what the ruling is. That pretty much ends the debate as to "what you got" :D .

But that aside, you do realize IP is a Delayed Dead ball and the ball is still live right?

I stand corrected, in realizing that an ilegal pitch is a DELAYED DEAD BALL, you are right. The runner is out and no pitch. Thanks............

I wondered when someone would find it... :)

I emailed Wild Bill about my specific play with 2 outs, asking if you'd score the runner from 3B on the IP. His reply was yes, then you have the 3rd out. Basically, enforce the penalties in the order they occured.

It was also brought up about why doesn't the 'no pitch' negate the 'illegal pitch' call. I was pointed to the wording of 8.7.S Effect: The ball is dead, "no pitch" is declared when applicable, and the runner is out.

Apparently it's not applicable here.

He probably submitted the dang thing. What a cheater.

;)