Screwy Play that acually happened

[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?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

I wouldn't have to. I'd apply this exception anytime the pitcher failed to release the pitch. What I said was this would "prevent the possibility" of it ever happening, not that it would only apply if judged as an intentional act.

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

An IP is a DDB. Just because the pitcher doesn't release the ball when supposed to, are you going to kill the ball? What if there is another rotation and ball delivered toward the batter? It is still an IP, but the batter STILL has the opportunity to strike the ball. To state that the ball unreleased after two rotations is an immediate dead ball would deprive the offense of putting the ball into play.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

An IP is a DDB. Just because the pitcher doesn't release the ball when supposed to, are you going to kill the ball? What if there is another rotation and ball delivered toward the batter? It is still an IP, but the batter STILL has the opportunity to strike the ball. To state that the ball unreleased after two rotations is an immediate dead ball would deprive the offense of putting the ball into play.

No, but if the runner is timing to the pitcher and the pitcher holds for a complete extra revolution. The ball became dead long before the pitch was illegal and therefore the pitch was not illegal.
There are lots of situations where I can see an illegal pitch and leaving early. But a violation for not delivering the pitch seems like it'd be tough to have both happen.