What Am I Missing?
 

Perusing the November issue of Referee magazine, I took a look at the softball Case Plays.

In the second one, F1 commits an illegal pitch and R1 then leaves first "just before the pitch is released." Jay Miner's answer is that you basically ignore the leaving early and enforce the IP. (If the batter puts the ball in play, the OC gets to choose the play or the penalty, plus any other enforcements, depending on the code).

I think that as soon as the BU sees R1 leaving early and says, "No Pitch!" then any further action is moot. Ball on the batter and all runners advance one base.

Am i missing something?

No. Amateur Softball Association of America (ASA)
________
Nexium Lawyer

Referee Magazine has a notorious history of messing up softball case plays. Anything you read there, take with a grain of salt. Then, pull out the books and investigate.

What if the illegal pitch ruling precedes the left early in the following manner

Pitcher does two windmills (runner leaves on what they thought was release on first windmill ASA 6.3.D) In that case the illegal pitch causes them to leave early and I believe it would be correct to allow the offense to choose the results of the play.

I guess the crux is that it's likely for the pitch to be illegal before release so it's possible that the infraction on the pitch is prior to the infraction on the base.

I would think minimally you would allow the offense to choose the result of the play or a ball and runners advance. With that result being that you called the runner on base out for leaving early and they probably wouldn't want to keep that result and would take the ball and advancement.

Your 4th paragraph answered your question (statement) in paragraph 2.

Result of play is dead ball, runner out for leaving early. Your choice coach..................

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.

Didn't we talk about this a couple of years ago?

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

Speaking ASA, according to the interpretation linked to above by youngump, the coach's choice option does not nullify the runner being out for leaving early. That out stands, regardless. And, since the leaving early resulted in a dead ball, there are no other aspects of the play to be considered. If there are other runners, they receive the base award, and the batter is awarded a ball. The runner who left early is out.

Also, argodad, what you were missing was the credibility of Referee on softball rulings is worse than your average coach.

Did Referee specify a specific rule book?

Is it Referee or .......?

Given the writer, probably OBR.

The subtlety some are missing is the timing of when the ball becomes dead. An IP is normally a delayed dead, so the "leave early" applies as the ball is still live until that infraction, even if the IP is committed first.
The other side is an IP that is IDB, like the 20 second limit. If that occurs, it could be before the "leave early".

OK, my question is whether a "no pitch" can be treated as an IP if the pitch didn't occur? IOW, which takes precedence?

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. Below is from the March 2008 Rules Clarification on the ASA Umpire web page:

PLAY: R1 on 1B and no count on B2. F1 commits an illegal pitch, by bringing the hands together a second time, which is called by the plate umpire, but continues the pitch. Just before releasing the ball R1 leaves the base before the release of the pitch. In (a) B1 does not swing at the pitch. In (b) B1 swings at the pitch and gets a base hit. In (c) R1 is on 1B and R2 is on 3B at the start of the play.

RULING: The illegal pitch happened when the pitcher brought their hands together, paused, the hands separated to begin the pitch, then the hands came back together prior to the release of the pitch. In (a) and (b) the ball became dead when R1 left 1B before the pitch was released. 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.

Enforce both the leaving early and illegal pitch infractions, The Ball is dead and R1 is out and a ball is awarded to B2. In (c) The plate umpire should call illegal pitch when it occurs and then “dead ball” when R1 leaves 1B too soon. R1 is out, R2 is awarded home and B2 is awarded a ball in the count.

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.

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.

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

Can you be more specific as to your concern?

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.

ASA has answered ;):cool:

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.

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.

Bob Newhart: Hello? Oh, hello, is this the Third World?
Phone Voice: Why, yes sir, it is. However, some day we are going to be #2, We Try Harder!
Bob Newhart: Really? You guys have rental car companies?
Phone Voice: Of course, we do, we are the Third World, not the Lost World. Why do you ask?
Bob Newhart: Nevermind, that isn't why I called.
Phone Voice: Then why did you call?
Bob Newhart: Well, I was just wondering around this web site of the goofy folks who think the know how to umpire softball games. You know, sometimes I wonder where they ever came up with some of the moves they make flailing their arms all over t....
Phone Voice: Sir...SIR!!!...the reason you called?
Bob Newhart: Oh, sorry. Well, I came across this simple little play and there were real simple answer and then one of your guys snuck in there somehow and I just hate seeing people beat the hell out of some Third World Play.

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.

Sorry, but this comment is incorrect.

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

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"?

2 rotations of the arm, ball released on 2nd rotation.

I think that sounds a lot simpler than actually doing it :D

Actually, quite often that is not an illegal pitch.

In NFHS it is!

In ASA it is. 6-3-D

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.

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 :D

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?

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.

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?

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... :D

Hey Larry
 

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

Thread jack patrol alert!!!!!!

http://meredith.wolfwater.com/cart.jpg


:D

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.:D

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.

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!):D

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. :D