Screwy Play that acually happened

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

If an illegal pitch is done intentionally, then don't we have a different situation? I can't find an official rule in the rules book, but I did find this in the NFHS casebook:

Yes, from the 2011 NFHS rules interpretation:
SITUATION 7: B2 is at bat with R1 on first base. F1 begins her wind up and then holds onto the ball instead of releasing it toward B2. R1 leaves first base anticipating that F1 will release the pitch. RULING: A pitching and base-running infraction have occurred at virtually the same time and both are penalized. R1 is out for leaving the base before release of the pitch; an illegal pitch is called on F1 for failing to deliver the pitch, which results in a ball being awarded to B2. However, if in the umpire’s judgment, F1’s act was deliberate to bait and deceive R1 into leaving the base early, the umpire shall call “time” and “no pitch.” The umpire shall eject F1 and/or the head coach from the game. If the umpire believes the coach is directly responsible for the actions of F1, the umpire may eject only the coach. The defensive team is attempting to benefit by circumventing the rules. R1 is obliged to stay in contact with the base until the ball is released by the pitcher; however, the tactic being utilized by the defense is deceptive and not in accordance with the spirit of fair play. (3-6-13b, c; 6-2-1; 8-6-21)

[Dakota]

That still leaves a gap inbetween those two case plays. A double touch is not likely to have been the cause of R1 leaving early, but not releasing the pitch after starting the wind up certainly can be. In that case, I disagree with ruling R1 out EVEN IF there is no judgment of willful intent... How would you judge that anyway? The IP "caused" the runner to leave before the pitch was thrown (because R1 was timing the pitch, and the pitch was never thrown). Officially, the only two options are to call the runner out or eject the pitcher? Not right.

[clev1967]

So does this run count with two outs? I cannot see how it does. Yes. the illegal pitch happened first -or did it really as it is a DDB. DDB is enforced after the play is over the LBE is instant DB so it is enforced right away.

I can see enforcing the LBE first thus the run would not count.

Compare it to a less than two outs situation. Are you going to move all the runners up and call a ball then say "now you standing on second you are out". More than likely you would be calling dead ball runner is out then enforce the illegal pitch with the remaining runners and ball on batter.

Chicken or the egg, maybe?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

That still leaves a gap inbetween those two case plays. A double touch is not likely to have been the cause of R1 leaving early, but not releasing the pitch after starting the wind up certainly can be. In that case, I disagree with ruling R1 out EVEN IF there is no judgment of willful intent... How would you judge that anyway? The IP "caused" the runner to leave before the pitch was thrown (because R1 was timing the pitch, and the pitch was never thrown). Officially, the only two options are to call the runner out or eject the pitcher? Not right.

Agreed. I understand the ejection if this is intentional. However I don't understand penalizing the runner if it was not intentional. The purpose of (some of) the pitching rules is to keep the pitcher from deceiving the runner. If the illegal pitch did, in fact, illegally deceive the runner (even if unintentional), it seems ludicrous to penalize that runner.

[BretMan]

Big Slick, that is the interpretation I thought I remembered reading somewhere, but couldn't find in the Case Book.

Really kind of a goofy ruling that introduces the element of "judging the spirit and fair play of the rules" that we've never been directed to call before, plus imposes a penalty (ejection) that is way out of line for the violation.

Funny, that while removing a player's "intent" from the rules has been the rage the past few years, NFHS would introduce a new ruling where we are forced to judge the pitcher's "intent".

I would love to see the rule changed so that if the pitcher never releases the ball, runners cannot be called out for leaving before the pitch is released. Dead ball on the pitching violation (actually, a delayed dead ball that is delayed an infintesimally small amount of time before being declared dead), then enforce the IP penalty.

But I can envision problems with that, too. Suppose the runner takes off way before the pitcher's normal release point, say just as her hands separate. This startles the pitcher and that is what causes her to stop her pitching motion and hold the ball. The offense would then have benefited by an intentional and gross violation of the leaving early rule!

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by Dakota

That still leaves a gap inbetween those two case plays. A double touch is not likely to have been the cause of R1 leaving early, but not releasing the pitch after starting the wind up certainly can be. In that case, I disagree with ruling R1 out EVEN IF there is no judgment of willful intent... How would you judge that anyway? The IP "caused" the runner to leave before the pitch was thrown (because R1 was timing the pitch, and the pitch was never thrown). Officially, the only two options are to call the runner out or eject the pitcher? Not right.

3-6-13c seems to cover any intentional act of the pitcher not releasing the ball:

Unsporting acts shall not be committed, including, but not limited to...behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

I agree with Bret that this needs to be addressed by NFHS as to not penalize the runner.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Dakota

That still leaves a gap inbetween those two case plays. A double touch is not likely to have been the cause of R1 leaving early, but not releasing the pitch after starting the wind up certainly can be. In that case, I disagree with ruling R1 out EVEN IF there is no judgment of willful intent... How would you judge that anyway? The IP "caused" the runner to leave before the pitch was thrown (because R1 was timing the pitch, and the pitch was never thrown). Officially, the only two options are to call the runner out or eject the pitcher? Not right.

I agree and have expressed that frustration at meetings when I first was aware of the ruling.
It just doesn't make sense to me.

BUT............

[IRISHMAFIA]

Still waiting for someone to show me where any rule set states the runner has any right to not have their timing disrupted.

Originally Posted by TwoBits

If an illegal pitch is done intentionally, then don't we have a different situation? I can't find an official rule in the rules book, but I did find this in the NFHS casebook:

6.2.1 Situation: With Ri on second base, the pitcher uses a legal delivery. However, she throws the ball up in the air and catches. The umpire awards R1 third base and awards the batter a ball because of the illegal pitch. This procedure was used to put the batter on base without pitching to the batter.
Ruling: The umpire is correct and shall warn the pitcher if this procedure is repeated, she will be guilty of unsportmanlike conduct and ejected from the game. (3-6-13)

Meanwhile, I don't believe I'm in complete agreement with the ruling here.

I the pitcher used a legal delivery, as stated, and released the ball, as stated, where it the illegal act as it pertains to an IP?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Still waiting for someone to show me where any rule set states the runner has any right to not have their timing disrupted....

Of course they don't have a right to not have their timing disrupted by legal play, but they should have a "right" (jeez, I hate the overuse of that word...) to not have the pitcher engage in an illegal act to disrupt their timing. With these rulings, they don't have that "right" either.

[marvin]

Runners have the right to leave the base once the pitcher releases the ball. If the runner tries to get as much of an advantage by "timing" the release she is subject to the penalty that happens when she gets the timing wrong. In NCAA play there are teams that teach the pitchers to use a delivery that utilizes a slowed down arm movement to try to get outs this way.

More pitchers are being taught to not deliver a pitch when an illegal pitch is called. Coaches realize that they are giving the offense a free shot at a better result than the IP penalty, so it should be one of the expected results that the pitcher will not release the ball when an IP is called.

The runner's responsibility is to stay on the base until the ball is released, so unless you have an action by the defense that causes an exception to apply (such as the NFHS case cited) then why shouldn't the runner be out?

[tcannizzo]

This is starting to get interesting.
You know how pitchers stand behind the plate and slap the ball into the glove a few times before throwing a pitch.
What if the pitcher did this as part of her actual pitching delivery?
Not sure what to rule if it ever happened...
But could this be used to lure the runner off base and then make a snap throw to pick off runner?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Still waiting for someone to show me where any rule set states the runner has any right to not have their timing disrupted.



Meanwhile, I don't believe I'm in complete agreement with the ruling here.

I the pitcher used a legal delivery, as stated, and released the ball, as stated, where it the illegal act as it pertains to an IP?

6-3-A. No? (6-3-N, is also somewhat on point except that it never hit the ground)

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by marvin

Runners have the right to leave the base once the pitcher releases the ball. If the runner tries to get as much of an advantage by "timing" the release she is subject to the penalty that happens when she gets the timing wrong. In NCAA play there are teams that teach the pitchers to use a delivery that utilizes a slowed down arm movement to try to get outs this way.

But, that is legal play.

Originally Posted by marvin

More pitchers are being taught to not deliver a pitch when an illegal pitch is called.

But, that is not what the issue is. The issue is when a pitch is illegal BECAUSE it was not delivered.

Originally Posted by marvin

The runner's responsibility is to stay on the base until the ball is released, so unless you have an action by the defense that causes an exception to apply (such as the NFHS case cited) then why shouldn't the runner be out?

Then you have turned the IP rule on its head. The defense gets a benefit (runner out) by pitching illegally.

[marvin]

Originally Posted by Dakota

But, that is not what the issue is. The issue is when a pitch is illegal BECAUSE it was not delivered.

In the opening post the IP was called almost immediately as the pitcher started. It would be a reasonable for the pitcher to NOT deliver a pitch in that circumstance. Why would that be different than a pitch that is illegal simply because it isn't delivered?

Originally Posted by Dakota

Then you have turned the IP rule on its head. The defense gets a benefit (runner out) by pitching illegally.

The runner's responsibility does not change - she has to stay on the base until a pitch is released. As I said before if the offense tries to time that release to maximize their jump off the bases they are taking the risk of being called out when anything changes the pitcher's timing.

If the pitcher does not deliver a pitch and, in the umpire's judgment the pitcher has not violated some other rule, it is the runner's responsibility to comply with the rule that requires them to stay on the base until a pitch is released.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by marvin

In the opening post...

I was discussing the case plays, as I thought I had made abundantly clear

Originally Posted by marvin

If the pitcher does not deliver a pitch and, in the umpire's judgment the pitcher has not violated some other rule, it is the runner's responsibility to comply with the rule that requires them to stay on the base until a pitch is released.

Not delivering the pitch IS violating a rule. So, it is your contention that the defense can use an IP to draw a runner off the base and get an out? Really? And don't give me "intent"; unless they are stupidly obvious about it, intent cannot be determined.