What Am I Missing?

[RKBUmp]

In ASA it is. 6-3-D

[Dakota]

I think the ASA ruling has the potential for abuse by a clever coach/pitcher (e.g. going around on the windmill, but just not releasing the ball... runner leaves before the ball is released, called out, and a ball on the batter... same result as a pitch-out, caught stealing, but easier).

But, given the distinct lack of such shenanigans, either all the coaches / pitchers have not caught on, or it doesn't work as well in reality as it seems like it might on paper.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I think the ASA ruling has the potential for abuse by a clever coach/pitcher (e.g. going around on the windmill, but just not releasing the ball... runner leaves before the ball is released, called out, and a ball on the batter... same result as a pitch-out, caught stealing, but easier).

But, given the distinct lack of such shenanigans, either all the coaches / pitchers have not caught on, or it doesn't work as well in reality as it seems like it might on paper.

To have the opposite ruling would allow even more significant abuses. There are many ways to violate the pitching rule that wouldn't mislead the baserunner; I can't imagine that anyone would consider that means baserunners can leave early without any penalty.

Example: R1 on first, F1 starts her pitching motion with back foot off the pitching plate. R1 leaves base immediately on first motion, and is almost to 2nd base when F1 releases the ball. B2 grounds to F5, F5's throw to F3 pulls F3 off the base. R1 easily reaches 3rd base without a throw.

In this play, the IP is not a dead ball, never becomes a dead ball, and R1 gained an illegal advantage that certainly wouldn't be intended by the rulesmakers. As long as the IP can be ignored as a result of the offense doing better, it can't and shouldn't be used to ignore violations by the offense. R1 does not get to leave the base early because the pitcher violated.

In the singular case of F1 pitching illegally solely to draw a runner off base, the umpires need to use judgment and game management skills to not allow the pitcher to gain an illegal advantage. If we kill a play to keep a batter or coach from creating an illegal pitch (and we do!!) and warn or penalize that action, you need to equally kill the play where the pitcher creates the runner leaving the base early by an illegal motion. Kill that one immediately and award the IP penalty; since you killed the IP, the runner didn't leave early, it never happened in live play (same rationale as the batter can't hit the ball when you killed the play because the runner left early).

Even if they complain/protest that the IP is a DDB, the fact is you killed the play, and can't unring that bell, now can you?

[wadeintothem]

You have multiple competeting violations where enforcement of either or both could result in abuse on either side...

So, the answer is simple, if you leave early on a IP, its a IDB, no pitch.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

You have multiple competeting violations where enforcement of either or both could result in abuse on either side.

Don't buy it. Maybe Bob will.

So, the answer is simple, if you leave early on a IP, its a IDB, no pitch.

Of course, it is. That is what has been said all along.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Don't buy it. Maybe Bob will.



Of course, it is. That is what has been said all along.

Out of curiosity, has that been submitted for this year?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...In the singular case of F1 pitching illegally solely to draw a runner off base, the umpires need to use judgment and game management skills to not allow the pitcher to gain an illegal advantage. If we kill a play to keep a batter or coach from creating an illegal pitch (and we do!!) and warn or penalize that action, you need to equally kill the play where the pitcher creates the runner leaving the base early by an illegal motion. Kill that one immediately and award the IP penalty; since you killed the IP, the runner didn't leave early, it never happened in live play (same rationale as the batter can't hit the ball when you killed the play because the runner left early).

Even if they complain/protest that the IP is a DDB, the fact is you killed the play, and can't unring that bell, now can you?

The problem with this is two-fold:

1) We won't know whether or not the runner will leave early until they actually do (hence, we're killing the play AFTER the runner left), and

2) Your argument that you killed the play prior seem to be a method to circumvent the ASA ruling rather than apply it. It may not be protestable, but it would still seem to be ignoring a ruling you disagree with.

This whole thing is, as Mike says, a bit into TWP territory, but the ASA ruling is counter intuitive to the way the rule is written. The OC being given the choice of the IP being enforced (ball and runner advances) or the result of the play (runner out) is the more intuitive ruling. Couple that with the number of umpires who would not want to rule the runner out because it is "unfair", and I'd guess 9 out of 10 rank and file umpires would enforce the IP and not declare the runner out.

On the double windmill, (on further thought), there probably never actually WAS an IP in ASA. The ASA rule is "not two revolutions", and the runner leaving early is an immediate DB/no pitch, so the pitcher never actually made two revolutions before the ball was dead...

[bkbjones]

Larry,
Aren't you glad you asked?
Since this thing has already been hijacked to hell and back: how are things in Floridia? Glad your daughter got moved into her new digs. That's a great neighborhood she's in over there.
Weather here has already been ugly. First flood warning of the year yesterday, over near Snoqualmie. You've probably heard the stories about the dam they are having problems with, down by Kent. No where near Lindsay, no where near me. If it gets to where SRW lives, we're all in trouble and will need arks.
Isn't it funny how this topic was hijacked? We all discussed it to hell and back quite some time ago and I'm pretty sure the "play of the month" came straight from that discussion back then. Guess these folks will never learn the search feature and will continue to hijack posts like they did yours.
Well, all this typing has worn my butt out. Still have limited energy, hope that improves with time.
All my best,
John

[wadeintothem]

Thread jack patrol alert!!!!!!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This whole thing is, as Mike says, a bit into TWP territory, but the ASA ruling is counter intuitive to the way the rule is written. The OC being given the choice of the IP being enforced (ball and runner advances) or the result of the play (runner out) is the more intuitive ruling. Couple that with the number of umpires who would not want to rule the runner out because it is "unfair", and I'd guess 9 out of 10 rank and file umpires would enforce the IP and not declare the runner out.

Actually, Tom, I think ASA's ruling is the fairest of them all.

Both teams committed a violation. Both teams are being held accountable.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Actually, Tom, I think ASA's ruling is the fairest of them all.

Both teams committed a violation. Both teams are being held accountable.

Until some drooling so cal coaches catch on (probably from a thread like this) and figure out a way to bend it to their favor at nats.'

Trade an IP for an out?

Especially with 1 runner on, its a no brainer.

Lucky for us, most of them dont read.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Until some drooling so cal coaches catch on (probably from a thread like this) and figure out a way to bend it to their favor at nats.'

Trade an IP for an out?

Especially with 1 runner on, its a no brainer.

Lucky for us, most of them dont read.

Yet they still haven't figured out how to get their players a running start at 1B. Go figure.

Well, if they do trade the IP for an out, they will only do it once or lose the game if the umpire is on the ball.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

In ASA it is. 6-3-D

I didn't say they were all legal.

Yes, two "complete" rotations. Often, what is perceived as a second revolution does not necessarily meet the standards for an IP to be called.

Ever see a pitcher make a small, abbreviated rotation to the side and then fully extend for the delivery swing forward? How often is it called illegal?

If the pitcher separates and begins her motion in front of her body, she can make what seems to be full revolutions. But since the ball is often released immediately after coming past the body, it is still less than two which makes it one. Even though it may look like two full revolutions, it is still legal.

Even Somalian pirates couldn't hijack something this easily