Screwy Play that acually happened

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