NCAA considers changing IP penalty

[AtlUmpSteve]

I was told by my NFHS contacts that a similar discussion was held in June by the NFHS Softball Rules Committee. The considerations suggested that if the illegal pitch penalty was simply a ball on the batter, and no awarded bases to the baserunner(s), then 1) it would be a more appropriate penalty, since the baserunners were not deceived (compared to a baseball balk) and should not be rewarded by the pitcher's mistake, and 2) it might be called more regularly and consistently by umpires that might currently hesitate, afraid to make impact calls.

I wasn't advised how close that may have come to passing as a rule change; was simply advised it was discussed at substantial length.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I was told by my NFHS contacts that a similar discussion was held in June by the NFHS Softball Rules Committee. The considerations suggested that if the illegal pitch penalty was simply a ball on the batter, and no awarded bases to the baserunner(s), then 1) it would be a more appropriate penalty, since the baserunners were not deceived (compared to a baseball balk) and should not be rewarded by the pitcher's mistake, and 2) it might be called more regularly and consistently by umpires that might currently hesitate, afraid to make impact calls.

I wasn't advised how close that may have come to passing as a rule change; was simply advised it was discussed at substantial length.

If I remember correctly, this isn't the first time the discussion about eliminating the base award has been raised.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If I remember correctly, this isn't the first time the discussion about eliminating the base award has been raised.

Probably not; not sure about NFHS, but I believe it has been proposed (and roundly poo-poo'd) in ASA before.

I reminded my contact that similar "logic" was used years ago when NFHS realized their "automatic appeal" (umpires were to call out runners that left early on a caught fly ball or missed a base, without an appeal being made) was being ignored by a large number of umpires who refused to notice unless it was a gross miss. Those umpires (the ones that would admit it) theorized that it wasn't their responsibility to enforce a rule they didn't agree with, because 1) it should be an appeal by the defense, even if the NFHS rules said it wasn't, and 2) it would be an "impact call". The nonenforcement forced NFHS to make it an appeal again, as the only means to get any consistency.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Probably not; not sure about NFHS, but I believe it has been proposed (and roundly poo-poo'd) in ASA before.

I reminded my contact that similar "logic" was used years ago when NFHS realized their "automatic appeal" (umpires were to call out runners that left early on a caught fly ball or missed a base, without an appeal being made) was being ignored by a large number of umpires who refused to notice unless it was a gross miss. Those umpires (the ones that would admit it) theorized that it wasn't their responsibility to enforce a rule they didn't agree with, because 1) it should be an appeal by the defense, even if the NFHS rules said it wasn't, and 2) it would be an "impact call". The nonenforcement forced NFHS to make it an appeal again, as the only means to get any consistency.

Same "logic" as to the Federation's automatic base award on an OBS call. Lot of young ladies got some seriously bruised legs blocking 1B when they figured out the umpires were not going to make the OBS call and give the runner a base unearned.

[MigoP]

I agree with just a ball on the batter. It's not a balk where the pitcher is trying to decieve runner. I also agree with Irish,what makes 5 the number? Call them until they realize it's not going to be tolerated and a violation of the rules. If they want it changed let them duke it out with NCAA NFHS ASA.