Screwy Play that acually happened
 

In a NFHS game, there was the following play:

Runner R1 on first and R2 on second, one out, count on the batter is 3 balls, one strike. Pitcher begins her pitch and base umpire immediately calls illegal pitch and signals delayed dead ball because the pitcher steps back with the non-pivot foot after the hands are brought together. Then runner R1 clearly leaves early before the release of the pitch. The base umpire immediately calls “Dead Ball, No Pitch, Runner at first left too soon!” The pitcher delivers the pitch and the batter attempts a bunt, but does not make contact with the ball.

What are the correct penalties for the two separate infractions, one by the defense and one by the offense?

I say that R1 is out (for violation of lookback rule) and R2 is awarded 3rd (for the illegal pitch). Does the dead ball negate the 'ball' being awarded to the batter?

Help!!!

Can't speak for NFHS, but I'll take a stab at the ASA answer. Correct me if I'm wrong. And remember, I'm SP-only. ;)

When the pitcher committed the IP, we've got a DDB. Then, we have the runner leaving the base too soon (not a violation of the LBR). Once the runner left the base, the ball immediately becomes dead.

Enforce both. The pitcher committed the infraction, so a ball is awarded to the batter, and the runners advance. Then, enforce the runner leaving early AFTER enforcing the IP.

Why is that important?

Well, what if there were two outs with a runner on 3B?

Am I right? Or am I smoking crack? :)

A couple of things I recall, hazily.

I thought this scenario was an ASA clarifications scenario.

An illegal pitch is a delayed dead ball, but leaving early is an immediate "no pitch", so if a batter contacts the ball if pitched, I'd say we have nothing.

My thinking is that the no pitch would take precedence over the DDB, so in the case that there were 2 outs, no need to award a ball to the batter or move any other runners. Three outs, inning over.

Gotta look for that rules & clarifications page.

Here it is...
 

March 2008
Illegal Pitch / Runner leaving Early

The question has been asked what to do when an illegal pitch is called in fast pitch and also a runner leaves before the release of the pitch. If an Illegal pitch is called and then a runner leaves before the pitch is released then the base umpire should also call dead ball. Since dead ball is called and no pitch happens the umpire should enforce the Illegal pitch, a ball on the batter and the runner leaving the base too soon will be called out. If there is more than one runner on base then the runner leaving the base too soon is out and all other runners are advanced one base because of the illegal pitch.

PLAY: R1 on 1B and no count on B2. F1 commits an illegal pitch, by bringing the hands together a second time, which is called by the plate umpire, but continues the pitch. Just before releasing the ball R1 leaves the base before the release of the pitch. In (a) B1 does not swing at the pitch. In (b) B1 swings at the pitch and gets a base hit. In (c) R1 is on 1B and R2 is on 3B at the start of the play.

RULING: The illegal pitch happened when the pitcher brought their hands together, paused, the hands separated to begin the pitch, then the hands came back together prior to the release of the pitch. In (a) and (b) the ball became dead when R1 left 1B before the pitch was released. The fact that the batter did not swing in (a) or got a hit in (b) is irrelevant because the ball became dead when R1 left 1B early. Enforce both the leaving early and illegal pitch infractions, The Ball is dead and R1 is out and a ball is awarded to B2. In (c) The plate umpire should call illegal pitch when it occurs and then “dead ball” when R1 leaves 1B too soon. R1 is out, R2 is awarded home and B2 is awarded a ball in the count.

Rule 8, Section 7-S, Effect, Rule 6, Section 3-B, Effect-A Illegal Pitch

Tru....what rule set are you referencing? I don't work NFHS and I'm currently about 200 miles away from my ASA book.

And I believe that was argued both here and in my meeting soon after that. Here's why.

Given that interpretation, if I was pitching - once I got a runner on first, I'd get on the pitching plate, wind up as if to pitch and simply not throw the ball. There - I've committed an illegal pitch... but the runner most likely left when I appeared to be pitching. So I have a ball on the batter, but my runner is out.

Obviously that is not right.

An illegal pitch is illegal for some reason - many of which involve deceiving runners or the batter (albeit not all). If the pitch is illegal and deceives the runner, I have a hard time penalizing the runner.

He's referencing ASA.

I'll also point out the effect listed for ASA 8-7-S:
I interpret the "when applicable" to describe situations OTHER than what we're describing here. I don't think we can ignore the pitching infraction, nor can we ignore the runner leaving early. I'd enforce both in the order and manner I described earlier.

But bringing this back to the OP... Since this was NFHS, would this be ruled any differently?

I seem to remember this coming up in one of the preseason FED clinics with the ruling being you enforce both. Dont have time to look through the case book at the moment to see if it is covered.

FED Case Book says to enforce both. Case Play is 8.6.21

The ball is dead on the "leaving early" infraction. The runner that left early is out. The illegal pitch penalty is enforced- a ball added to the batter's count and any other runners on base advance one base.

But in which order?

Say bases are loaded with 2 outs. Does R1 on 3B score?

You have to enforce them in the order in which they occured. IP is a DDB, and you get to award bases, then DB for the RLE, out #3. Run scores.

Remember, both sides F'd up here. the Oteam gets the 3rd out, but they get rewarded for the Dteam and the IP. The Dteam gets rewarded for the Oteam's screwup, but they get penalized for the IP.

This is why I've always had a hard time with the official interpretation here. Those illegal pitch actions that throw off the runner's timing should not be rewarded if they succeed.

ZING! A SP guy just nailed a FP question. :D

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)

Both the ASA Rule Clarification & Play and the NFHS Case 8.6.21 do not specify the number of outs. I think that w/ less than 2 outs, a runner from 3B would score and no one seems to disagree with that. With 2 outs, it's not so clear.

Here's the NFHS case:

RUNNER LEAVES BASE EARLY
8.6.21 SITUATION: With R1 on third base and R2 on first base, F1 double
touches for an illegal pitch. The plate umpire calls an illegal pitch but before the hands separate to deliver the ball, R2 leaves first base on her way to second base.
The base umpire calls "dead ball" and calls R2 out. RULING: R2 is out for leaving first base before F1 released the ball. The illegal pitch is enforced which results in a "ball" awarded to B3 and one base (home) to R1. (6-1-2)

The ruling above deals w/ R2 being out before the illegal pitch penalty is enforced. So if that's the case, with 2 outs to start, the LBE results in the 3rd out. After that, can bases be awarded and a ball be added to the batter's count?

Yes, from the 2011 NFHS rules interpretation:
SITUATION 7: B2 is at bat with R1 on first base. F1 begins her wind up and then holds onto the ball instead of releasing it toward B2. R1 leaves first base anticipating that F1 will release the pitch. RULING: A pitching and base-running infraction have occurred at virtually the same time and both are penalized. R1 is out for leaving the base before release of the pitch; an illegal pitch is called on F1 for failing to deliver the pitch, which results in a ball being awarded to B2. However, if in the umpire’s judgment, F1’s act was deliberate to bait and deceive R1 into leaving the base early, the umpire shall call “time” and “no pitch.” The umpire shall eject F1 and/or the head coach from the game. If the umpire believes the coach is directly responsible for the actions of F1, the umpire may eject only the coach. The defensive team is attempting to benefit by circumventing the rules. R1 is obliged to stay in contact with the base until the ball is released by the pitcher; however, the tactic being utilized by the defense is deceptive and not in accordance with the spirit of fair play. (3-6-13b, c; 6-2-1; 8-6-21)

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.

So does this run count with two outs? I cannot see how it does. Yes. the illegal pitch happened first -or did it really as it is a DDB. DDB is enforced after the play is over the LBE is instant DB so it is enforced right away.

I can see enforcing the LBE first thus the run would not count.

Compare it to a less than two outs situation. Are you going to move all the runners up and call a ball then say "now you standing on second you are out". More than likely you would be calling dead ball runner is out then enforce the illegal pitch with the remaining runners and ball on batter.

Chicken or the egg, maybe?

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.

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!

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.

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............:p

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?

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.

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?

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?

6-3-A. No? (6-3-N, is also somewhat on point except that it never hit the ground)

But, that is legal play.

But, that is not what the issue is. The issue is when a pitch is illegal BECAUSE it was not delivered.

Then you have turned the IP rule on its head. The defense gets a benefit (runner out) by pitching illegally.

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?


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.

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.

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

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"! :rolleyes:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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".

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?

It is not a set-up; it is the official ruling, and that is my objection to the official ruling. If an IP "draws" a runner off her base, we are to enforce both the IP and the leaving early. And, who here thinks no coach will ever figure this out? How many coaches would trade an out for a ball on the batter?

An answer modified for a previous similar thread...

The cool thing is that the NSA ruling is actually "better" in this case.......

F1 creates the illegal act.
U indicates illegal pitch and puts left arm out.
Pitcher continues into wind up and begins the pitch.
R1 leaves before release of the pitch
U indicated "dead ball" as F1 finishes delivery to F2.
U asks O coach if he would like rusult of the play (R1 out for leaving early, No pitch)
Or take the penalty for IP (ball on batter, R1 to second)
Simple.........
Play ball

I don't think you are... but the official ASA ruling seems to be just this dumb.