Screwy Play that acually happened

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

March 2008
Illegal Pitch / Runner leaving Early

The question has been asked what to do when an illegal pitch is called in fast pitch and also a runner leaves before the release of the pitch. If an Illegal pitch is called and then a runner leaves before the pitch is released then the base umpire should also call dead ball. Since dead ball is called and no pitch happens the umpire should enforce the Illegal pitch, a ball on the batter and the runner leaving the base too soon will be called out. If there is more than one runner on base then the runner leaving the base too soon is out and all other runners are advanced one base because of the illegal pitch.

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

Tru....what rule set are you referencing? I don't work NFHS and I'm currently about 200 miles away from my ASA book.

[MD Longhorn]

And I believe that was argued both here and in my meeting soon after that. Here's why.

Given that interpretation, if I was pitching - once I got a runner on first, I'd get on the pitching plate, wind up as if to pitch and simply not throw the ball. There - I've committed an illegal pitch... but the runner most likely left when I appeared to be pitching. So I have a ball on the batter, but my runner is out.

Obviously that is not right.

An illegal pitch is illegal for some reason - many of which involve deceiving runners or the batter (albeit not all). If the pitch is illegal and deceives the runner, I have a hard time penalizing the runner.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

...An illegal pitch is illegal for some reason - many of which involve deceiving runners or the batter (albeit not all). If the pitch is illegal and deceives the runner, I have a hard time penalizing the runner.

This is why I've always had a hard time with the official interpretation here. Those illegal pitch actions that throw off the runner's timing should not be rewarded if they succeed.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This is why I've always had a hard time with the official interpretation here. Those illegal pitch actions that throw off the runner's timing should not be rewarded if they succeed.

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)

[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.

[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............

[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?

[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?

[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)