What would you have done?

[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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by ronald

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.

When has ASA ever said this for slow pitch?
________
Hyde Park Residence Condo Pattaya

[ronald]

Originally Posted by youngump

When has ASA ever said this for slow pitch?

When has ASA ever ruled a do-over? Never. So now take all info you have about IP followed by no pitch and you are left with only one thing to do.