What Am I Missing?

[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.

[Snocatzdad]

Speaking from a coaches perspective

It's too obscure, I wouldn't chance it that the umpire would call it right. If judges can legislate from the bench, I'm guessing more Umpires than not would choose to penalize a coach who got cute trying to manipulate the rule.

As for the guy who said earlier that the offensive coaches would start sending their runners as soon as they see an IP if they changed the rule. I'll list below all the coaches that would be willing to risk a baserunner on the chance that an IP is an automatic call.

List starts ....



List ends ....

(don't ban me, I ump some games too!)

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Snocatzdad

Speaking from a coaches perspective

It's too obscure, I wouldn't chance it that the umpire would call it right. If judges can legislate from the bench, I'm guessing more Umpires than not would choose to penalize a coach who got cute trying to manipulate the rule.

As for the guy who said earlier that the offensive coaches would start sending their runners as soon as they see an IP if they changed the rule. I'll list below all the coaches that would be willing to risk a baserunner on the chance that an IP is an automatic call.

List starts ....



List ends ....

(don't ban me, I ump some games too!)

Verty true! and thats why I specified "during nats".

There is a big chance that on your average weekend, you wouldnt get either call... the IP or the leaving early.. and if you did happen to get both called, they would probably get the rule wrong, afterwhich, you probably couldnt protest it anyway.

But during Nats you would probably get both calls and if it were ruled incorrectly, you could summon a National Staff UIC for an immediate protest and get the correct ruling.

Your point about penalizing a coach "getting cute" is well taken though, and very likely the actual bottom line to this.