Is this right ?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

On this year's ASA test, question 15FP:
"The pitcher may step on the pitcher's plate with their hands together as long as they separate them to take a signal before starting the pitch."

Since this is an ASA question, it requires a bit more applied logic to decipher the ruling, as the ASA wording is not as specific as NFHS.

Ted

OK, I'll bite. (My philosophy that stepping back off being a remedy notwithstanding.) How is the new rule 6.1-a not crystal clear in itself?

"The pitcher must take the pitching position on the pitcher's plate with hands separated and the ball in the glove or the pitcher's hand."

No exceptions. No applied deciphering. Separating them after engaging isn't taking the position with them separate.

(But, I still contend that she can step off before she separates to remedy. That ends the action and makes her prior engagement NOT taking a pitching position.)

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...(But, I still contend that she can step off before she separates to remedy. That ends the action and makes her prior engagement NOT taking a pitching position.)

Speaking NFHS, what do you do with the case play I cited above? The case play states that once she steps onto the plate with the hands together, it is an IP.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Speaking NFHS, what do you do with the case play I cited above? The case play states that once she steps onto the plate with the hands together, it is an IP.

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.

[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.

I actually made very nearly the same argument about disengaging a couple of years ago on the NFHS forum. I was made to realize that this was not the NFHS interpretation. They want the IP in this kind of situation to be enforced before the pitch can start.

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I actually made very nearly the same argument about disengaging a couple of years ago on the NFHS forum. I was made to realize that this was not the NFHS interpretation. They want the IP in this kind of situation to be enforced before the pitch can start.

And it looks like ASA is following suit. bout time they realize that NFHS is leading the way....

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

And it looks like ASA is following suit. bout time they realize that NFHS is leading the way....

The one individual quoted above as saying that was the ASA rule said that previously, too. As a member of the 2008 ASA Playing Rules Committee, I can tell you that was NOT the intent of the rule revision, nor does it say so.

In both rule sets, the written rules allow the pitcher to disengage prior to starting a pitch. While there is (unfortunately) a casebook ruling in NFHS, there is not in ASA.

As a rule of thumb, there are numerous contradictory opinions on the NUS; only KR can issue a written interpretation.

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

The one individual quoted above as saying that was the ASA rule said that previously, too. As a member of the 2008 ASA Playing Rules Committee, I can tell you that was NOT the intent of the rule revision, nor does it say so.

In both rule sets, the written rules allow the pitcher to disengage prior to starting a pitch. While there is (unfortunately) a casebook ruling in NFHS, there is not in ASA.

As a rule of thumb, there are numerous contradictory opinions on the NUS; only KR can issue a written interpretation.

erm I was referring to "fullcounts" post when I elluded to ASA following suit. but it really doesnt matter... its 72 degrees out, its sunny with a 5-10 mph breeze, and its softball time.

Peace

[FullCount]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

The one individual quoted above as saying that was the ASA rule said that previously, too. As a member of the 2008 ASA Playing Rules Committee, I can tell you that was NOT the intent of the rule revision, nor does it say so.

In both rule sets, the written rules allow the pitcher to disengage prior to starting a pitch. While there is (unfortunately) a casebook ruling in NFHS, there is not in ASA.

As a rule of thumb, there are numerous contradictory opinions on the NUS; only KR can issue a written interpretation.

Curious Steve- I'm getting confused. What was not the intent of the rule revision? To what are you referring?

[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 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.

[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?

[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?