Fed pitching question

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I'm suggesting the rules are not clear/consistent.

Hey Man - I know you read the NFHS board which just pointed out the NFHS casebook play - which is very clear!
6.1.1 A

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Hey Man - I know you read the NFHS board which just pointed out the NFHS casebook play - which is very clear!
6.1.1 A

What about:
"6.f.2: when the hands are together and no part of the windup motion has been made, the pitcher may legally step back from the pitching plate with both feet.

Time out could also be requested. If granted, F1 could start her pitching process over." ?

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What about:
"6.f.2: when the hands are together and no part of the windup motion has been made, the pitcher may legally step back from the pitching plate with both feet.

Time out could also be requested. If granted, F1 could start her pitching process over." ?

I would say that the case book makes it clear that the illegal pitch has already occurred, wouldn't you?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What about:
"6.f.2: when the hands are together and no part of the windup motion has been made, the pitcher may legally step back from the pitching plate with both feet.

Time out could also be requested. If granted, F1 could start her pitching process over." ?

I believe it means that nothing else that was illegal has occured to that point. If you have hands together and step on the pitching plate, you have committed a violation. And you will be ticketed.

[Little Jimmy]

Thanks for all the replys. My day has been crazy busy and this is the first time I've had a chance to respond. As stated by some, Fed casebook 6.1.1 is cut and dry..."F1's hands shall be apart when she steps onto the pitcher's plate. Therefore, this is an illegal pitch." There seems to be no ifs, ands or buts about it. But there is a difference between the clarity of the casebook and the wording of the rulebook. I'm not thinking that delayed dead ball works here. If it is illegal and there is no way to make it legal (as per Fed), then why let thie pitch be delivered? Spit on the ball...dead ball, no pitch permitted . Take a nail file out of her pants and jab the ball...dead ball, no pitch permitted. It seeems like Fed is saying this infraction is like that, even though they aren't clear rulebook wise.

I think I'll pose the question to my state interpreter and see if he can get some info at the national office.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

Thanks for all the replys. My day has been crazy busy and this is the first time I've had a chance to respond. As stated by some, Fed casebook 6.1.1 is cut and dry..."F1's hands shall be apart when she steps onto the pitcher's plate. Therefore, this is an illegal pitch." There seems to be no ifs, ands or buts about it. But there is a difference between the clarity of the casebook and the wording of the rulebook. I'm not thinking that delayed dead ball works here. If it is illegal and there is no way to make it legal (as per Fed), then why let thie pitch be delivered? Spit on the ball...dead ball, no pitch permitted . Take a nail file out of her pants and jab the ball...dead ball, no pitch permitted. It seeems like Fed is saying this infraction is like that, even though they aren't clear rulebook wise.

I think I'll pose the question to my state interpreter and see if he can get some info at the national office.

I think this is serious overkill here.

It is a DDB. If the pitcher stops at that point and there is no pitch imminent, kill it and apply the appropriate rule.

But if the pitcher doesn't stop and continues with a pitch, are you prepared to tell the batter that the ball she just hit over the fence doesn't count because you don't believe the pitch should be allowed?

There are reasons an IP is a DDB and this is one of them.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I think this is serious overkill here.

It is a DDB. If the pitcher stops at that point and there is no pitch imminent, kill it and apply the appropriate rule.

But if the pitcher doesn't stop and continues with a pitch, are you prepared to tell the batter that the ball she just hit over the fence doesn't count because you don't believe the pitch should be allowed?

There are reasons an IP is a DDB and this is one of them.

Even though I logically and philosophically agree, the official word for NFHS in Delaware is Immediate DB and the pitch is dead regardless of thrown or not, along with the other Article 1 infractions.

The ASA book does not say the pitcher can remove herself, so it would seem ths same applies, unless you are decreeing otherwise.

[RKBUmp]

Under the FED dead ball table it does say immediate dead ball, "IF NOT RELEASED". How can the pitch ever be released if the umpire kills the play the moment the pitcher steps on the pitching plate?

[HugoTafurst]

In another thread, this is posted:

From March 2008 Plays and Clarifications on the ASA website.

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.

Rule 8, Section 7-S, Effect, Rule 6, Section 3-B, Effect-A Illegal Pitch
************************************************** ********

I think I first became aware of this ruling 2 years ago and I don't quite understand the part about ruling the runner out for leaving early.
My thinking has been that there are many illegal pitches which can actually cause (if that is the correct word) the runner to leave early.

Don't runners time their leaving a base to the pitcher?
Isn't it reasonable to think that it is this illegal infraction could be the cqause of the runner leaving early?

Just wondering if I'm way off base on this one?

I know the case ruling, just seems funny to me.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

I think I first became aware of this ruling 2 years ago and I don't quite understand the part about ruling the runner out for leaving early.
My thinking has been that there are many illegal pitches which can actually cause (if that is the correct word) the runner to leave early.

Don't runners time their leaving a base to the pitcher?
Isn't it reasonable to think that it is this illegal infraction could be the cqause of the runner leaving early?

Just wondering if I'm way off base on this one?

I know the case ruling, just seems funny to me.

Only IP's that would cause an issue with the runners timing would be the leap and crow hop as the pitch would not be released as quick as would be from the push-off than what would of happened in a legal pitch.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Only IP's that would cause an issue with the runners timing would be the leap and crow hop as the pitch would not be released as quick as would be from the push-off than what would of happened in a legal pitch.

I meant to start a new thread with that post as it is completely different than this thread - I made the correction and deleted my post here,
but to answer your comment -

Wouldn't you say a double touch affects a runner's timing?
Wouldn't you say that most of the infractions in Article 4 could affect the runner's timing?

(Lets continue this in the other thread - I'm sensitive to hijacking threads 9unless it's to talk about alcohol)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Only IP's that would cause an issue with the runners timing would be the leap and crow hop as the pitch would not be released as quick as would be from the push-off than what would of happened in a legal pitch.

Which should be irrelevant.

There is no "right" of or rule to prevent the runner to not have their timing disrupted. Either the pitcher released the ball or she didn't. If not, the runner cannot leave the base.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Which should be irrelevant.

There is no "right" of or rule to prevent the runner to not have their timing disrupted. Either the pitcher released the ball or she didn't. If not, the runner cannot leave the base.

(Moved answer to new thread for organizational purposes )