What would you have done?

[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.