Is this right ?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If I remember correctly, the change in ASA was a result of a direct challenge (not in a game) by a coach who pointed out that there was no requirement in the book which supported the routine umpire's ruling that a pitcher step onto the pitcher's plate with the hands separated.

Yeah, some people can't follow along with the totality of the rules.

But, following the logic that the pitcher can always disengage until she starts the pitch, stepping onto the plate with the hands together is more of an indicator that it WILL be an IP if she does not step back off (that is, up until this rule clarification), since she cannot get from there to a legal pitch.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

When calling NFHS, I follow the approved ruling. Speaking academically, I believe the approved casebook ruling contradicts the written rule, for the reasons I have given.

Yes, but since ASA has now placed the direct requirement of having the hands separated into the rule, I assume the IP (DDB) signal goes out at that moment, right? Do you nullify the call if she disengages (I assume so, but it would then lead to a discussion with the OC, I'd expect...).

[FullCount]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If I remember correctly, the change in ASA was a result of a direct challenge (not in a game) by a coach who pointed out that there was no requirement in the book which supported the routine umpire's ruling that a pitcher step onto the pitcher's plate with the hands separated.

That's pretty much how it was explained by Walt S. in the January DFW metro clinic and he also expanded to say it might help head off any futue challenges by coaches. Kevin R. was also at that clinic and he addressed the rule change briefly in his breakout session that covered situations on the field. It was also explained loosely along the same lines in the DFW NUS.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

When calling NFHS, I follow the approved ruling. Speaking academically, I believe the approved casebook ruling contradicts the written rule, for the reasons I have given.

Steve,

Isn't the case book just as binding as the rule book? I don't have mine with me, but I believe it has some wording that says as much. I believe the case book is designed to further illustrate the intent of the rules. As you know, sometimes the intent is lost in the wording of the rule. That's why we use case book plays to back up our arguments from time to time.

I know about 3 years ago ASA changed the wording of the rule regarding D3K because the wording didn't reflect the correct interpretation. They didn't change the rule, just how it was written. If you followed it to the letter, there were situations in which the batter could not run to first base even though the intent was to allow it and as umpires we enforced the intent not the letter of the rule. I believe there were even case plays that corrected the written word and provided the correct interpretation.

So when someone interprets a rule one way based on the wording and the case book play contradicts that interpretation, which takes precedence?

[FullCount]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Yes, but since ASA has now placed the direct requirement of having the hands separated into the rule, I assume the IP (DDB) signal goes out at that moment, right? Do you nullify the call if she disengages (I assume so, but it would then lead to a discussion with the OC, I'd expect...).

It was explained to us that it was an IP immediately that could not be nullified by stepping off. A DDB signal is to be given as soon as the pitcher steps on the plate with hands together. At least that's what I got out of it. That would be logical with the 2009 change and it's consistent with other infractions. For example a pitcher cannot stop in mid-windup and then nullify the IP by stepping off.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by FullCount

... For example a pitcher cannot stop in mid-windup and then nullify the IP by stepping off.

True, but besides the rule prohibiting the stop, she may not legally step off / disengage once the hands have separated. Rule 6-8.

The pitcher may move back from the pitching position by stepping back off the pitcher’s plate prior to separating their hands.

In the case of the pitcher taking the plate with the hands together, if she steps back off before separating the hands, that act is legal.

The question is: is it already too late due to the clarification of Rule 6-1-A?

There are ASA clinicians who apparently are saying, yes, it is too late, which makes the ASA rule and interpretation the same as the NFHS rule and interpretation.

[FullCount]

Originally Posted by Dakota

True, but besides the rule prohibiting the stop, she may not legally step off / disengage once the hands have separated. Rule 6-8.In the case of the pitcher taking the plate with the hands together, if the steps back off before separating the hands, that act is legal.

The question is: is it already too late due to the clarification of Rule 6-1-A?

There are ASA clinicians who apparently are saying, yes, it is too late, which makes the ASA rule and interpretation the same as the NFHS rule and interpretation.

Yes, we were told that at that point it is too late. That was the whole point of the rule change- too make that very clarification.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by FullCount

Yes, we were told that at that point it is too late. That was the whole point of the rule change- too make that very clarification.

By what you have posted to this point, the only clinician that told you it could not be remedied by stepping off in an ASA game is the same one who previously stated (before the rule change) the same thing. The rule change does not state that; it clarifies what Dakota says, and what was questioned here, what was apparently unclear, that to be legal, a pitcher had to initiate the pitching position with hands separated, pause to take (or simulate taking) the signal, then must bring the hands together.

The rule change does NOT say it is illegal if she does any of this with hands together, as the one clinician has stated. Nothing there contradicts the ability of the pitcher to remedy the "will be illegal" by stepping off and restarting correctly. I have great respect, and a lot of (positive) history with that individual, I just don't see the rule stating what he is saying.

By Full Count's statements, KR did not make that statement. Maybe no one asked him, maybe he would issue an agreeing ruling. But he has not (that I am aware of), and that doesn't supercede what is in the book. He can; he hasn't.

Rwest, re-read what I already stated. It is my opinion that the NFHS case play ruling contradicts the written rule, but it is a written ruling. Tht makes it official; even if it stated that batters are awarded first base on an uncaught foul ball with a 2-1 count. An academic discussion can still ensue; but if that is the approved ruling, it is our job to enforce it (until someone in appropriate authority realizes it is wrong, or the written rule is changes to match).

[FullCount]

[QUOTE=AtlUmpSteve;578933]By what you have posted to this point, the only clinician that told you it could not be remedied by stepping off in an ASA game is the same one who previously stated (before the rule change) the same thing. The rule change does not state that; it clarifies what Dakota says, and what was questioned here, what was apparently unclear, that to be legal, a pitcher had to initiate the pitching position with hands separated, pause to take (or simulate taking) the signal, then must bring the hands together.

The rule change does NOT say it is illegal if she does any of this with hands together, as the one clinician has stated. Nothing there contradicts the ability of the pitcher to remedy the "will be illegal" by stepping off and restarting correctly. I have great respect, and a lot of (positive) history with that individual, I just don't see the rule stating what he is saying.

By Full Count's statements, KR did not make that statement. Maybe no one asked him, maybe he would issue an agreeing ruling. But he has not (that I am aware of), and that doesn't supercede what is in the book. He can; he hasn't. [QUOTE]


Good morning Steve,

Let me take another shot at this because I may be missing your point. First, the clinician who covered 2009 rules changes in the December NUS in DFW was Julie and her explanation was that the rule change now makes it an illegal pitch if the pitcher steps up on the plate with hands together and that a DDB signal was to be given then. Later, Walt was addressing game management and during his remarks he stated that this change was to make the rule consistent with the way everyone was already calling it- IP (his statement not mine). Three weeks later, at the DFW regional clinic Walt covered the rule changes and clearly stated the change was to make clear that this is an IP and was a result of a challenge that the pitcher could remedy the IP by stepping off. He said it would also help us address any future challenges with coaches who may try to contend that there was a remedy. Later that same day, KR, as part of his session discussed it again briefly and concurred that this is an IP. KR's comments were not a "ruling," but only part of a general discussion that came up about on-field situations.

But what I took away from both clinics is that in 2009 you can not remedy that IP infraction by stepping back off the plate before separating the hands. Maybe I misunderstood.

[CecilOne]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
Yes, but since ASA has now placed the direct requirement of having the hands separated into the rule, I assume the IP (DDB) signal goes out at that moment, right? Do you nullify the call if she disengages (I assume so, but it would then lead to a discussion with the OC, I'd expect...).

Originally Posted by FullCount

It was explained to us that it was an IP immediately that could not be nullified by stepping off. A DDB signal is to be given as soon as the pitcher steps on the plate with hands together. At least that's what I got out of it. That would be logical with the 2009 change and it's consistent with other infractions. For example a pitcher cannot stop in mid-windup and then nullify the IP by stepping off.

However, in this case it is not DDB. As I said earlier, some IP do not require a dead ball (NFHS 6-1-1, 6-2-2, 6-2-3), so the IP is immediate, the ball is dead immediately.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
Yes, but since ASA has now placed the direct requirement of having the hands separated into the rule, I assume the IP (DDB) signal goes out at that moment, right? Do you nullify the call if she disengages (I assume so, but it would then lead to a discussion with the OC, I'd expect...).


However, in this case it is not DDB. As I said earlier, some IP do not require a dead ball (NFHS 6-1-1, 6-2-2, 6-2-3), so the IP is immediate, the ball is dead immediately.

What I have gathered so far is the following (assuming the reported statements by a couple of the members of the NUS are correct):

If the pitcher steps onto the plate with the hands together, this is an illegal pitch that cannot be remedied. The DDB signal is given, and the pitch is allowed to complete (assuming the pitcher completes it), and the penalty is assessed as normal after the pitch. If the pitcher stops the pitch or attempts to step back off the plate, a dead ball is declared and the IP penalty assessed.

Right?

[FullCount]

Originally Posted by Dakota

What I have gathered so far is the following (assuming the reported statements by a couple of the members of the NUS are correct):

If the pitcher steps onto the plate with the hands together, this is an illegal pitch that cannot be remedied. The DDB signal is given, and the pitch is allowed to complete (assuming the pitcher completes it), and the penalty is assessed as normal after the pitch. If the pitcher stops the pitch or attempts to step back off the plate, a dead ball is declared and the IP penalty assessed.

Right?

That is the understanding that I took away and I felt they went to great length in both of the clinics to make that point. However I don't have the experience nor the involvement with rule making that Steve or Mike have so I'm hoping they chime back in. Steve definitely appears to have a different understanding and I respect his input.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

What I have gathered so far is the following (assuming the reported statements by a couple of the members of the NUS are correct):

If the pitcher steps onto the plate with the hands together, this is an illegal pitch that cannot be remedied. The DDB signal is given, and the pitch is allowed to complete (assuming the pitcher completes it), and the penalty is assessed as normal after the pitch. If the pitcher stops the pitch or attempts to step back off the plate, a dead ball is declared and the IP penalty assessed.

Right?

If it's an IP, cannot be remedied, doesn't that mean it is illegal whether completed or not. The rules I quoted do not include delay in the penalty, the others do.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

If it's an IP, cannot be remedied, doesn't that mean it is illegal whether completed or not. The rules I quoted do not include delay in the penalty, the others do.

The IP is considered an infraction by the defense to put the offense at a disadvantage. The DDB is to allow the offense the opportunity to get all they can get from the play rather than kill the play. Because if this, in general, I think the NFHS interpretations of declaring a dead ball before the pitch even starts are not what I would do if I was making the rules. Now, allowing the pitcher to disengage and nullify the IP is another matter entirely. But, a strict reading of the rules allows this.