What Am I Missing?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Snocatzdad

Your right, I misread the initial post. I though he was saying as soon as he saw movement on the runner "No pitch" and called runner out despite illegal pitch.

So did I. Consequently, when I said you weren't missing anything I was wrong. The runner is out despite the illegal pitch. See the linked case play (which is why we discussed this last year).
________
HotBellaXXX

[Snocatzdad]

Originally Posted by youngump

So did I. Consequently, when I said you weren't missing anything I was wrong. The runner is out despite the illegal pitch. See the linked case play (which is why we discussed this last year).

What would stop a Defensive Coach from instructing his pitcher to throw a double windmill once a game with a runner on 1B know that the runner will likely leave early on the first expected release point and the only penalty is a ball on the batter and likely chance to get runner called out for leaving early.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by Snocatzdad

What would stop a Defensive Coach from instructing his pitcher to throw a double windmill once a game with a runner on 1B know that the runner will likely leave early on the first expected release point and the only penalty is a ball on the batter and likely chance to get runner called out for leaving early.

My thought exactly.

If the referenced case plat truely is ASA's ruling - they sure have a hole in the rules and a case play that directly contradicts the rules as written.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by robbie

My thought exactly.

If the referenced case plat truely is ASA's ruling - they sure have a hole in the rules and a case play that directly contradicts the rules as written.

No, I just made that up and blamed it on ASA

Can you be more specific as to your concern?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...Can you be more specific as to your concern?

I think he is concerned about this kind of thing: R1 on 1B. DC intentionally calling for an IP of the type designed to fake the runner into leaving early (such as a double windmill). Cost: ball on the batter; benefit: R1 out. Maximum downside if R1 doesn't bite: R1 on 2B.

[RKBUmp]

Wouldnt this type of play fall unders USC? Would be similar to a coach trying to have his pitcher use the 20 second time out to purposely walk a batter rather than legally deliver the pitches as required under the rules. The coach is attempting to use 1 rule to circumvent another to their advantage.

If the pitcher has been legal the entire game, but is suddenly illegal with a double windmill with a runner on base, he may get the first call, but should also come with a warning that if it happens again hes getting the USC call.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Wouldnt this type of play fall unders USC? Would be similar to a coach trying to have his pitcher use the 20 second time out to purposely walk a batter rather than legally deliver the pitches as required under the rules. The coach is attempting to use 1 rule to circumvent another to their advantage.

If the pitcher has been legal the entire game, but is suddenly illegal with a double windmill with a runner on base, he may get the first call, but should also come with a warning that if it happens again hes getting the USC call.

What does the rule say? Is the runner required to keep contact with the base until the ball is release or until when the runner believes the ball is supposed to be released?

So I understand, will someone please describe what you are calling a "double windmill"?

[wadeintothem]

It would take some abuse like that to get a more sensible ruling.

The ball is dead at the time of the IP, albeit delayed. The penalty, as with all other things, should begin enforcement as if at the time of the infraction

The ASA clarification, which was discussed a few years ago, makes 0 sense.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

It would take some abuse like that to get a more sensible ruling.

The ball is dead at the time of the IP, albeit delayed. The penalty, as with all other things, should begin enforcement as if at the time of the infraction

Sorry, but this comment is incorrect.

The ASA clarification, which was discussed a few years ago, makes 0 sense.

Now we know that your recent absence was spent camping near Crystal Cave during the burn off of the nearby marijuana fields.