Illegal Pitch / Runner leaves early

[HugoTafurst]

(I meant to post this as a new thread - now I am..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[HugoTafurst]

(copied from different thread)

#31 (permalink) Today, 07:48am
HugoTafurst
Registered User Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central, FL
Posts: 360

Quote:
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)

[HugoTafurst]

(Moved from other thread)

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.

We always talk about thinking of the intent of rules - sometimes a good thing, sometimes not.
This is a case where I always thought that the reason for mayny IP rules was to provide "continuity" (if you will) to the batter or the runner so as to balance advantage/disadvantage things.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

(Moved from other thread)
We always talk about thinking of the intent of rules - sometimes a good thing, sometimes not.
This is a case where I always thought that the reason for mayny IP rules was to provide "continuity" (if you will) to the batter or the runner so as to balance advantage/disadvantage things.

IMO, IPs are rule violations when a pitcher is attempting to get an unfair advantage over the batter, not the runner.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

IMO, IPs are rule violations when a pitcher is attempting to get an unfair advantage over the batter, not the runner.

Agreed. Furthermore, it is still the runner's responsibility to know when the pitch has been released before they may lose contact with the base. The ruling provided appropriately enforces the pitcher's infraction as well as the runner's.

[HugoTafurst]

NCASA / IRISH...
Obviously the rules makers think as you do.

Just one of those things that kind of crept into my brain from time to time since reading the proper enforcement.

Thanks