Screwy Play that acually happened

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

Say what? If the ball is dead before the pitch was illegal, how can you have an illegal pitch?

And if you are going to insist on staying with the runner's timing issue please provide rule citation which specifically addresses that privilege.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

Sounds like you're confusing "illegal pitch," "no pitch," and "dead ball". They are three very different things.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Say what? If the ball is dead before the pitch was illegal, how can you have an illegal pitch?

And if you are going to insist on staying with the runner's timing issue please provide rule citation which specifically addresses that privilege.

I'm not saying the runner has a timing privilege. And based on you and SRW's responses, I'm obviously not making myself clear at all. So let me try again.

Vanilla case play. The pitcher leaps and the runner leaves early. Illegal pitch at the time of the leap. DDB. Runner steps off the bag. Dead ball. Runner is out advance all the other runners and give the batter a ball.

Variation A: The pitcher hoping to draw an out slows her delivery. The runner holds the bag waiting for the release. The pitcher does not deliver the ball. Illegal pitch. Dead ball. (And it's dead as soon as you know the pitcher isn't going to deliver the ball because it's delayed until either the pitcher chooses not to pitch or the result of the pitch).

Variation B: The pitcher hoping to draw an out slows her delivery. The runner loses the bag. Dead ball. Runner is out.

My entire point was that you can't have variation A and B at the same time because either the pitcher commits not to delivering (a Dead Ball) or the Runner comes off the bag (a dead ball).

Irish, when you come back with there are lots of times when it won't be an immediate dead ball I don't disagree.
Example of what I understood you were saying: The pitcher makes two revolutions presumably to throw the ball (and while still moving), the runner comes off on the first one after the pitch is already illegal. Two violations, enforce both.

Now does any of that sound wrong?

[Dakota]

Simple question to Mike et al: Is an IP a legal pick-off move?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Simple question to Mike et al: Is an IP a legal pick-off move?

There are no pick-offs in softball, at least, not by a pitcher since the runner isn't supposed to be off the base.

Now, what softball people refer to as a "pick-off" is when the catcher tries to catch a runner off base.

Then again, there are many people in softball who think that the foot isn't suppose to be near the base when executing a "hook slide".

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There are no pick-ups in softball, at least, not by a pitcher since the runner isn't supposed to be off the base.

Now, what softball people refer to as a "pick-off" is when the catcher tries to catch a runner off base.

Then again, there are many people in softball who think that the foot isn't suppose to be near the base when executing a "hook slide".

Nice semantically "correct" answer. Care to answer the real question? Is an IP a legitimate move by the pitcher to get a runner out?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Nice semantically "correct" answer. Care to answer the real question? Is an IP a legitimate move by the pitcher to get a runner out?

And do you honestly think I'm dumb enough to fall for such a set-up?