Is this right ?
 

So at the local HS meeting last night and the following ruling came up.

R1 on 3B, R2 on 1B. F1 steps on the pitchers plate with the hands together, so we have an illegal pitch.

Before F1 releases the ball,during the illegal pitch, R2 leaves the base early so we now have a dead ball.

The ruling we got was R1 is awarded home and R2 is an out for leaving early...

Have this already been discussed here and I can't find it ?

Did you guys/gals cover this in OKC ? Cause thats where this seems to be coming from.

Any feedback on this would be helpful....

I will take a shot...

Since you mentioned a HS clinic....I will reference HS rules.

Once she has done this, there is no way that she can become legal. Kill the play there and penalize the illegal pitch.

I realize that an illegal pitch is a delayed dead ball by rule, however, I read something that I believe grants some wiggle room

6-2-3, Penalty, note: An illegal pitch shall be called immediately by the plate or base umpire when it becomes illegal. Depending on the infraction, a delayed dead-ball signal may be given.

Since this particular infraction is illegal well before the ball is pitched, why wait to call it and penalize it?

My interpretation only, I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

This is correct. The interpreation can be found in the March 2008 ASA Rule Clarification and Plays:

Illegal Pitch / Runner leaving Early

The question has been asked what to do when an illegal pitch is called in fast pitch and also a runner leaves before the release of the pitch. If an Illegal pitch is called and then a runner leaves before the pitch is released then the base umpire should also call dead ball. Since dead ball is called and no pitch happens the umpire should enforce the Illegal pitch, a ball on the batter and the runner leaving the base too soon will be called out. If there is more than one runner on base then the runner leaving the base too soon is out and all other runners are advanced one base because of the illegal pitch.

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

An illegal pitch during the preliminaries should be called immediately, and should not be a delayed dead ball (e.g. taking the plate with hands together, etc.)

A pitch that starts and then becomes illegal is a DDB and the pitch is allowed to complete.

In this particular play, isn't it possible that R1 was timing her release from the bag with the separation of the pitcher's hands, and therefore was guilty of "leaving early" because of the illegal pitch? Should R1 be penalized for this?

You are dealing with two different rule sets in your own question. HS leads me to believe this is NFHS rules. Your OKC reference leads me to believe you are now speaking ASA.

As pointed out in the above answers, there is a huge difference between ASA and NFHS on this scenario. Be careful not to mix them up.

Yes, we have discussed it before and it was part of the discussion in OKC last week.

In ASA, you enforce both with the leaving early first creating a dead ball.

Good point... I was commenting on NFHS interpretations as I understand them. I missed the reference to OKC.

We are a NFHS Association that is heavily influenced by ASA. All of our top dogs are ASA company men. ..The trainer said this weekend in OKC they came up with this ruling. They said this applies to NFHS.

NFHS Rule references?

Yes, hands separating is not the criteria, release of the ball is.

That does not seem a legit source for NFHS rules.

The OP is presumably about HS rules ("HS meeting"), so correct for NFHS. Some IP do not require a dead ball (6-1-1, 6-2-2, 6-2-3), so the IP is immediate, the ball is dead immediately; and anything the runner does after the infraction is immaterial.

That means the IP penalty is enforced and even the early leaving runner is advanced. If the runner left before the infraction, runner is out, IDB or DDB.

If the OP was about ASA, I yield the floor to Tom, Mike et al.

You know, I have heard this interpretation before, but I have never been able to reconcile it with NFHS 6-1-f-2, that says "when the hands are together and no part of the windup motion has been made, the pitcher may legally step back from the pitcher's plate with both feet;"

Can someone show me a rule or official written interpretation (other than XXY said so) that says this rule regarding pitch preliminaries does NOT apply when the pitcher steps on the pitcher's plate with hands together?

Honestly, without that (a contradictory rule, or a written interpretation), I can't see how stepping on with hands together cannot be remedied by stepping off. If it can still be remedied, then it isn't YET illegal. That means it isn't illegal until either 1) the hands separate, or 2) some part of the windup motion begins. If that (last sentence) remains true, then it is both possible and appropriate that a DDB be called, since the pitch has begun, and the scenario posed would remain in effect.

If this were right, then it is not a delayed dead ball. If the pitch isn't illegal yet, then there's no dead ball to delay. If a pitch isn't illegal when a runner leaves early, then it has no opportunity to become illegal.
________
condo rentals Pattaya

yeah but, isnt this in regards to a sequence of events? that must take place in a certain order?.... and there is the assumption that the pitcher came to the plate hands separated, then placed them together... then could legally step off with both feet? (i prefer either foot first then the other) because i get this mental image of the pitcher trying to step off with both feet at the same time (kinda bunny hopping backwards) but i digress.

I think you aren't fully following me. When a pitcher steps on with hands together, I have nothing yet; as stated above. If she steps back off, she has remedied the situation, and we start again (although the 20 second count between pitches continues). If she doesn't step off, when that pitcher separates, or starts a windup motion (NFHS only), it becomes (then) an illegal pitch. Since the pitch has started, by rule, you call the illegal pitch, and must signal a delayed dead ball, allowing the pitcher to continue, if she wishes.

If the runner leaves early, this wasn't caused by the illegal pitch; the runner is not permitted to leave until release, and the only illegal pitch that would cause the runner to violate would be a pitcher faking a pitch and holding on to the ball. The rulesmakers of ASA, NFHS (MS) and NCAA (DA) actually conferenced on this possible play, and recognized that if runners could leave early on an illegal pitch without penalty, that runners would be released and possibly halfway or more to the next base, disrupting the defense with an unfair advantage gained, and conceivably creating favorable "options" that far exceed the scope or intent of the illegal pitch penalty.

Same ruling applies in all 3 associations. While you penalize the illegal pitch, you also penalize the "leaving early". Since part of the leaving early results in a "no pitch", there is no offensive option. The runner that left early is out, a ball on the batter, and any [B]other[B] runners advance 1 base.

In any event, a smart coach will teach his pitcher to stop pitching (when she isn't too far into her motion) if she hears the words "illegal pitch" from an umpire. Continuing only gives the offense better options or better results than the IP penalty. And, no umpire looks at baserunners leaving when the pitcher stops and doesn't pitch.

tThe best answers I can give you are that a) the rule doesn't actually say that sequence can't be remedied by stepping off before starting the pitch, b) in fact, the issue of stepping off is listed last in that sequence, leading me to believe it can be used up until that time, and c) after years of rule changes and clarifications, the rule has never exactly said it is an illegal pitch if the pitcher steps on with hands together. We only know it cannot be a legal pitch if the sequence isn't followed, or the pitcher stops the sequence by legally stepping off.

By the way, the "with both feet" intends to decribe that the pitcher must completely disengage if both feet were in contact. Otherwise, the one foot stepping back could be construed as starting the legal pitching motion in NFHS. The next rule, 6-1-f-3 says that either foot may step back first (unlike small ball, which I believe requires the pivot foot to disengage first).

Ok how's this?
NFHS 6-1-1-a Prior to pitching, the pitcher MUST........., and with the hands separated.
so if she doesn't meet this, its a illegal pitch... even if she brings the hands together and then legally disengages the plate? yes? or am i totally not understanding what your asking?

I kinda feel like the guy who brought a knife to a gun fight when talking rules with y'all. :D

OK; but "prior to pitching". The act of disengaging (stepping off) means the action wasn't prior to pitching.

Let me ask it this way. Many pitchers like to keep the pitching plate clean, and between pitches, use their foot to sweep it clean. I think it is safe to say that we differentiate that contact from the preliminary to pitch by the fact that she then steps back off, prior to formally stepping on to start the required sequence. You would not invoke any preliminary pitching requirements, that she didn't have shoulders facing properly, that she didn't come to a full stop, that she didn't then immediately pitch. Why not? Because she legally stepped off; if she stayed there and then started a pitch, you would call it illegal. Suppose she had her hands together while using her foot to clear the plate? Is that different? Would you call that action an illegal pitch? I speculate (and surely hope) not; you would allow her to step off, disengage, restart under the sequence, legally engage.

Prior to pitching isn't an action that can be designated as concluded until the pitch begins; then the action to that point was prior to the pitch. It (prior) starts with engaging the plate, it (prior) ends when the pitch starts. Pitchers may legally disengage and restart by stepping off; that option is available when the hands are brought together (last in the required sequence) as long as the pitch hasn't started, no matter what else might happen wrong preliminary to the pitch, so far as I can tell. How/why is that option not available when the hands are together while stepping on?

Says nothing about starting the pitch.

Well, that was a very well thought out and eloquently typed out argument, and me showing up with my knife... lol.

All I can retort with is that I know an illegal pitch when i see one and i know when she is cleaning off the plate when i see it.
And if she steps on the rubber with her hands together i'm making this call regardless if she finishes the pitch or if she disengages. Because at the end of ART1 the penalty for failure to do anything exactly how its spelled out in 6-1-1-a thru f is to call an illegal pitch and I will deal with the coach in a professional manner when questioned.

ie: pitcher has one foot on the rubber, hands together, she then proceeds to fill in a little divot in front of the rubber. she is satisfied with her landscaping duties and then places landscaping foot behind rubber and does not disengage with other foot, she then moves on to simulate taking of signal or actually takes a signal (im in illegal pitch mode) she then thinks ok i need a moment and disengages. thats an illegal pitch.
I am taking liberties with assuming what she is thinking, but i am judging her by her actions.

gotta go Duke is winning.

How 'bout them Heels baby!!!
 

Yeah, but you don't get a W for leading at halftime. How 'bout them Heels baby!!! :D However, it was an excellent, well played game by both teams.

Sorry for the off-topic post

yep... was, still dont agree with that T for the elbow... looked like his hand slipped off the ball during the scrum. but then again im biased. :D

Why would someone from Cajun territory be a Dookie? :D Just askin'. ;)

Nfhs/asa
 

I've done ASA for a few years now. This year I'm also trying to get certified for NFHS and we're doing our training this month.

There are some differences in the pitching rules between the two associations, as I'm sure most of you are already aware.

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."

If this was an NFHS question, I'd say "false" because of:
6.1.1.a "Prior to pitching, the pitcher must take a postion with shoulders in line with first and third base with the ball in the glove or pitching hand, and with the hands separated."

PENALTY: (Art. 1) An illegal pitch is called.

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.

6.1.D "While on the pitcher's plate, the pitcher shall take the signal or appear to take a signal with the hands separated. The ball must remain in either the glove or pitching hand."

...then...

6.2 Starting the Pitch.
"The pitch starts when one hand is taken off the ball after the hands have been placed together."

So in the ASA wording, if the pitcher who arrived on the pitcher's plate with hands together separates the hands to take a signal, by definition she has already started the pitch. If she follows through with the pitch, assuming there was no signal given/taken, maybe that's legal. But if she separates the hands to take a signal, and puts the hands together again to start the pitch, I'd say that was illegal.

BTW, the wording of "when one hand is taken off the ball" is technically incorrect also. Since one hand has a softball glove on it, there's really only one "hand" available. And a pitch cannot be delivered from the glove. If she took her "available" hand off the ball the ball would remain in the glove or fall to the ground. Maybe better wording might be something like: "The pitch starts when the pitcher removes the ball from the glove or otherwise disengages contact with the glove hand." (I'd occasionally hold the ball behind the glove while presenting an empty glove to the batter until beginning the pitching motion.)

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.)

Nope. The pitcher shall take (or simulate taking) a signal. If she doesn't it doesn't much matter what she did with her hands.
________
Ophelie live

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.

In prior year's ASA had a set of requirements that, taken together, meant the pitcher must not step onto the plate with the hands together.

She must, while on the plate:
1) Take the signals (or pretend to) with the hands separated;
2) Bring the hands together for 1-10 seconds;
3) Separate the hands to begin the pitch;
4) Not bring the hands together a second time;

Taken together, it was not possible to do all of this if the hands were together when the pitcher stepped onto the plate.

The change only clarifies this.

Speaking ASA. Starting in 2009 there's no longer in leeway for interpretation. I believe that prior to the 2009 rules that a pitcher could step on the plate with hands together and then remedy the situation by stepping back of the plate with both feet prior to separating their hands. I realize that many umpires in this area called that illegal but I don't think the rules supported the IP. However, we were told in the NUS here in the DFW area that the 2009 pitching rules were specifically modified to clear that very issue up and remove all variations in application of the rule. Per their discussion and specific statement, under the 2009 rules it is illegal for a FP pitcher to step on the pitchers platewith hands together. Walt S.'s comment was "we all knew that it was illegal but this just made the rules clear and to match how it was being called in games." His discussion suggested that the rule clarification was help eliminate argument from coaches primarily.

The 2009 rule change does indeed make this clear cut. I was quoting from the ASA 2008 rule book. I've now printed out all the changes from the ASA site.

Much nicer now and I'm glad ASA cleaned this one up.

Ted

Because I have exceptional taste. :D (most of the time people take exception to my taste) but i digress. ohh yeah and my mom lives in the raleigh area... chapel hill, so im told (never been there)

I wish I could agree with you by rule.. I do in fact agree with you on this, based on principle and spirit of the rule.

I also wish the "NFHS powers that be" would allow the pitcher a way "out" if she does violate a thruf before she release the ball... and a pretty solid way would be to allow a legal disengagement.

I also wish I wasn't so cheap and would buy a winning powerball ticket. :D

Well, if you're ever up this way, let me know. I'm in said area, and we can hoist some beers together.

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.

definitely... BTW: we gotta have crawfish with that.

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.... :rolleyes:

I've got a big enough pot to cook it in! My old roommate was from Louisiana (near Fort Polk), and he loved cooking gumbo. I, of course, didn't mind eating it one bit.

hrmmm... gumbo!! ok, now im hungry!! maybe i can talk the pregger into making some chicken and sausage gumbo after i call my 4:30 game. :)

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

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

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.

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...).

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.

which takes precedence?
 

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?

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.

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 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.

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).

[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.

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?

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.

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.