Screwy Play that acually happened

[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?

[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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

If the pitcher does not deliver the ball then it's dead right? So if the pitcher completes the action of failing to deliver it before the runner leaves the base then the ball was dead and we have no leaving early. On the flip side, if the runner leaves before the pitcher has failed to deliver the pitch, then how do we have an illegal pitch? I'm thinking that if the illegal action is failure to deliver the pitch then we have to only pick one.

[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)