Screwy Play that acually happened

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

Maybe we should just return to the original rule of not leaving the base until the pitched ball has reached or passed the batter.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

That might work if the two violations happened with a significant gap of time between them. But since runners are trying to time their lead off with the exact instant of ball release, you have two practically simultaneous events happening at once. Seems just about impossible to determine which happened first.

Not to mention that you would be trying to judge something "not happening" first. Is that even possible?

Maybe this should be a "Double Foul Do-Over"!

If I was the Softball World Master Rulesmaker...I'd enforce the illegal pitch only when the pitcher fails to release the ball. Why do we make runners hold their base until the ball is released? So that they cannot gain an unfair advantage in advancing toward the next base. If the ball is dead on the illegal pitch, what advantage has the runner gained by leaving early? None, since the dead ball halts her advance.

This would eliminate the possibility of the defense possibly gaining an advantage (an out) by the pitcher purposely violating a rule.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

This would eliminate the possibility of the defense possibly gaining an advantage (an out) by the pitcher purposely violating a rule.

And just how are you going to determine the pitcher purposely violated any rule in an attempt to gain an advantage?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BretMan

That might work if the two violations happened with a significant gap of time between them. But since runners are trying to time their lead off with the exact instant of ball release, you have two practically simultaneous events happening at once. Seems just about impossible to determine which happened first.

Not to mention that you would be trying to judge something "not happening" first. Is that even possible?

But if you enforce both you are penalizing one team for an act that occurred during a dead ball. The justification that it was hard to tell doesn't seem to justify that.