What would you have done?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Not so. When I'm calling SP and see a flat or over 12' high pitch, I'll call "Illegal!" If the batter swings and hits the ball, I immediately say: "That made it legal!" or "It's legal now."

Where is that in the umpire manual? You shouldn't be saying anything.

Most batters know they have the option of swinging at an illegal pitch and will live with the results. Many batters seem to actually like those flat pitches.

I don't understand what that has to do with the fact that the pitcher violated 6.1.C & 6.7

Since in our OP, the batter contacted the IP, the IP is canceled.
And we're left with just the "No pitch" inadvertant call. So if'n that's all we're left with, I doin' a do-over. Course I'd hope to never be in that position in the first place. But maybe my partner who's calling the plate that game will be the one to brain fart.

You just said it, THERE IS NO PITCH FOR THE BATTER TO CONTACT!!!

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You just said it, THERE IS NO PITCH FOR THE BATTER TO CONTACT!!!

Mike, I'm still wrestling with this one a little. I generally agree with the approach, but please let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. I understand that there can be no pitch because the umpire had called the play over. But if there's no pitch for the batter to swing at then there's no illegal pitch for the batter to swing at. In which case, why are you awarding a ball?
________
AVANDIA CLASS ACTION

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by youngump

Mike, I'm still wrestling with this one a little. I generally agree with the approach, but please let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. I understand that there can be no pitch because the umpire had called the play over. But if there's no pitch for the batter to swing at then there's no illegal pitch for the batter to swing at. In which case, why are you awarding a ball?

Think fp...pitcher does some thing before releasing the ball that makes the pitch illegal.... ( no pause,etc...) The runner on 1b leaves before the pitch is released....what do you have???

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

Think fp...pitcher does some thing before releasing the ball that makes the pitch illegal.... ( no pause,etc...) The runner on 1b leaves before the pitch is released....what do you have???

I read that one in one of the ASA plays and clarifications, I think. That's fine, but our OP deals with something that an umpire did which caused the confusion. I don't think the rule book has a section on how umpires might extricate themselves from situations where they made the incorrect call or a premature call.

Right handed batter hits a ball off the end of the bat with a lot of spin. The ball is rolling down the 1B line and the PU calls it foul. F3, still waiting for the ball to perhaps kick in to fair territory, tracks the ball down the line. Batter stops running due to the foul call. Ball finally does kick in fair at which point F3 picks it up and tags 1B. Uh, oh! Now what?

[ronald]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I read that one in one of the ASA plays and clarifications, I think. That's fine, but our OP deals with something that an umpire did which caused the confusion. I don't think the rule book has a section on how umpires might extricate themselves from situations where they made the incorrect call or a premature call.

Yes, they do. It is called 10-3.C. In the case book they have plays where the umps made the incorrect call and how to extricate themselves. These plays or this play is under section 10 in the case book. There are 3 in the 2009 case book where ump makes a call that is incorrect and an out results. The umpire can rectify these situations.

Now as you can see, the "umpire did [something] which caused the confusion" and the umpire can rectify it. In FP, even though the player killed it, the ump declared no pitch, the IP is still not canceled. Why do you think because the ump declared no pitch, the IP should be canceled? I am not getting hung up on the particular of who caused the no pitch when I have clear indication from the front office that the enforcement of an IP is not canceled because it is followed by a no pitch call. Furthermore, given ASA difficult task of training 39,000 umpires, do you think they want two versions of what to do with an IP followed by a no pitch? I do not.

If everyone emails this play to their UIC's and regional UIC's, a definitive answer will come. Until then, IP stands.

Ron

Thanks.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

Think fp...pitcher does some thing before releasing the ball that makes the pitch illegal.... ( no pause,etc...) The runner on 1b leaves before the pitch is released....what do you have???

It's not analagous. Besides the one being the natural result of the play as mentioned by someone else, the penalty for an illegal pitch is quite a bit different and not trivially nullified.
________
BombitaSquirt live

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

Mike, I'm still wrestling with this one a little. I generally agree with the approach, but please let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. I understand that there can be no pitch because the umpire had called the play over. But if there's no pitch for the batter to swing at then there's no illegal pitch for the batter to swing at. In which case, why are you awarding a ball?

Because the violation occurred. There is zero argument about that.

Would it have been different if the umpire said "dead ball" instead of "no pitch"? The status of the ball is that same, if the batter hits the ball, it is still dead. The "no pitch" declaration was a misapplication of the effect, doesn't mean there was a misapplication of the rule.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Because the violation occurred. There is zero argument about that.

Would it have been different if the umpire said "dead ball" instead of "no pitch"? The status of the ball is that same, if the batter hits the ball, it is still dead. The "no pitch" declaration was a misapplication of the effect, doesn't mean there was a misapplication of the rule.

And to reiterate, that's what the PU had going through his head. He meant to kill the pitch with a "dead ball," but accidentally said, "no pitch."

In years past, failure to follow any of rule 6-1 (the "preliminaries") WAS a dead ball. Now, with one exception (simulating a pitching motion while not in contact with the pitcher's plate), any violation of 6-1 is an illegal pitch, but the hitter may still attempt to hit the ball. This change was made only a couple of years ago, so the old rule (which had been in place at LEAST since I started umpiring in '93) was still fresh in his mind.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

In years past, failure to follow any of rule 6-1 (the "preliminaries") WAS a dead ball. Now, with one exception (simulating a pitching motion while not in contact with the pitcher's plate), any violation of 6-1 is an illegal pitch, but the hitter may still attempt to hit the ball. This change was made only a couple of years ago, so the old rule (which had been in place at LEAST since I started umpiring in '93) was still fresh in his mind.

I think there is a little confusion here. An IP has always been a DDB during my years in SP. According to the 2000 rule book, 6.1 was part of an IP, it no longer is.

However, a pitch does not necessarily have to be thrown for there to be an IP.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I think there is a little confusion here. An IP has always been a DDB during my years in SP. According to the 2000 rule book, 6.1 was part of an IP, it no longer is.

However, a pitch does not necessarily have to be thrown for there to be an IP.

I'd have to dig up an old rule book, but I remember quite clearly that a violation of 6-1 was a dead ball. I don't recall when exactly it changed, but it was sometime around 2006 or 2007. If you have a 2004 rule book, I'm pretty certain you'll see that a violation of 6-1 is a dead ball, not a DDB.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Because the violation occurred. There is zero argument about that.

Would it have been different if the umpire said "dead ball" instead of "no pitch"? The status of the ball is that same, if the batter hits the ball, it is still dead. The "no pitch" declaration was a misapplication of the effect, doesn't mean there was a misapplication of the rule.

The violation did occur. We agree on that. But this is where you end your argument. I say because the batter swung [and contacted] the DDB & IP become nullified.

Whatever the umpire said after "illegal", whether dead ball, no pitch, is what we're debating. If the umpire said nothing after "illegal", maybe the SS would have fielded the ball maybe not. Maybe the batter gets a base hit, maybe not.

But since the IP has now been accounted for and canceled, it's the umpire's job to make it right. And since the IP is gone, at least in my mind, I'm not awarding a ball to the batter. And that's the only thing this whole string comes down to, whether or not to award a ball to the batter.

Would you make that award in a tie game in the bottom of the 7th, bases loaded and a 3 ball count already on the batter? I wouldn't make it in the first inning on the second pitch. I'd call illegal on the quick pitch/DDB and then see what happens from there.

To quote: "Sorry, Irish, you can attempt to justify this as much as you want, I think you are incorrect and would rule in that manner if protested."

[Tru_in_Blu]

After reading my own reply, I wonder how things would have changed if the batter swung and missed the ball altogether.

Since the ball would not have been put into play, would a strike call stand? If anyone thinks that a strike call should stand, why would you think that a ball should be called if the batter hit the ball?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

After reading my own reply, I wonder how things would have changed if the batter swung and missed the ball altogether.

Since the ball would not have been put into play, would a strike call stand? If anyone thinks that a strike call should stand, why would you think that a ball should be called if the batter hit the ball?

I think that in both cases, what happens next depends heavily upon the influence the umpire's screw-up had upon the play. That's the whole point of 10-3-C: that an umpire's mistake does or does not put the offense or defense in jeopardy.

In your case, what would happen next would depend heavily upon whether or not, in my judgment (and that's the key), I felt that my screw-up had any influence upon the batter's actions. If, in my judgment, I believe that I unduly influenced the batter's actions, I might kill the play and award a ball. However, the more likely scenario would be that I'd still count the swing and miss as a strike.

There's a vast difference in being able to field a good 80 MPH line-drive up the middle, and being able to swing a 34" long, 2.25" wide bat at a ball coming towards you at a gentle 8 MPH.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

After reading my own reply, I wonder how things would have changed if the batter swung and missed the ball altogether.

Since the ball would not have been put into play, would a strike call stand? If anyone thinks that a strike call should stand, why would you think that a ball should be called if the batter hit the ball?

It would be nothing because there was..............................anybody? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[ronald]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It would be nothing because there was..............................anybody? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

a no pitch called by the umpire. the ball became dead. thus, it is irrelevant what the batter does. the ball is dead, dead and more dead. you must enforce the ip cause ASA has already said you do so when an ip is followed by a no pitch call. if the batter hit it out of the park, nothing, no home run and then scott's fum starts again. Say what you are suppose to say and only when you are suppose to.

Well I am going to go dig up my 2009 nus drill book and shoot an email to the head honcho cause somebody will only listen to him. If he agrees with somebody, the rest will have to eat crow.