What Am I Missing?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA.

The pitching violation occurred prior to the running violation.

When in IP is called, it is DDB. The runner left early prior to the release of a live ball.

I believe your question fails to recognize is that an IP does not require a pitch to be thrown, therefore the subsequent "no pitch" status of the ball is irrelevant.

IOW, enforce both. .

No, I certainly know that an IP does not have to be thrown. The OP and other cases have the pitch being released. My comment was just about those IP which are IDB, rather than DDB. Whether it is thrown or not, is it a pitch and therefore an IP, if it is declared a "no pitch"?

"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."


Comments for all codes accepted.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

No, I certainly know that an IP does not have to be thrown. The OP and other cases have the pitch being released. My comment was just about those IP which are IDB, rather than DDB. Whether it is thrown or not, is it a pitch and therefore an IP, if it is declared a "no pitch"?

An IP is a violation of a rule, not necessarily the act of "pitching" the ball. Since there does not need to be a pitch for a violation to be effected, how would a declaration of "no pitch" negate something that does not require it to be a pitch to begin.

Steve was right, we did discuss this before and beat it to death. I haven't checked, but it is quite possible the ASA Rule Clarification came directly from the discussion on this board. That has occurred a few times over the past three years.

"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."


Comments for all codes accepted.

ASA has answered