Catcher not returning ball to pitcher
 

ASA punishes the defense with an IP (NCAA awards a ball to the batter and a warning for the 1st offense) when a catcher loses the count and erroneously throws the ball around when the bases are empty. Three questions:

1. Why is the rule in place?

2. Why is there no penalty when the batter takes off to first after ball 3?

3. Why the IP in ASA when the penalty amounts to the same as NCAA - a ball on the batter?

Maybe this has come up before on this board. If so, pardon my ignorance.

Well I don't have my ASA book handy, but I thought it was a ball on the batter in ASA as well?

Now that I thought a minute, it's not an IP but it is a ball on the batter. I guess one could say it has the same effect as an IP (ball on batter) as this situation can only occur with no one on base. Therefore it is only a ball and no bases are awarded.

Why not ask the ASA home office?

Bob

I'm pretty sure its "cuz."

They won't return my calls. Go figure. :D

I guess the question is not specific to ASA. I am just curious why any code would punish the defense and not the offense for a similar act. Actually, with runners on base, I have seen the offense end up with stolen bases when the batter heads to 1st before ball 4. I don't see any real harm to the offense when a catcher doesn't return the ball directly to the pitcher. Hopefully one of the "home office" guys on this board can enlighten me as to ASA's take on this.

Maybe because they know it is not an IP ;)

It is not an IP

Because there is no violation

Again, it is not an IP

6-7.b and effect begs to differ, but that's really just splitting hairs. Do you have any idea as to why the seemingly one-sided rule is used?

Look guy, one day a bunch of dudes sat around with iced tap water, cute matching shirts, and old coffee and talked about rules and they passed some rules and those are the rules. Some you agree with, some you dont. We do our job.

WTF over?

It's a harmless question "guy". If this is the best answer you can fashion, maybe you should read more and type less.

It is not splitting hairs, it is you not reading the Effect below 6.8

It reads EFFECT - Sections 1-5, 7A and 8:

You might notice that this does not include 6.7.B

Ya know, I think I will do the same. Not hard to delete posts, not that they would be missed. Ciao!

My mistake. The rule book next to my computer is from '05 and says EFFECT - Sections 1-8. Sorry.

My other question still stands.

HA! Says the guy who didnt read the rule book before he posted the question.

Whatever.

Let's start over.

Why would any code punish the defense and not the offense for a similar act such as this.