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 Ruling by phone from Bob Savoie was--interference superseded, canceled or whatever you wants to call it, obstruction by f2.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

[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....

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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!

[greymule]

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).

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

From ASA Umpire web page (Clarifications)

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!

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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!

wow.....

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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!

I can live with that. Thanks.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

I can live with that. Thanks.

its definately problem solved..