illegal pitch co and interference

[ronald]

Instructor gave me this one in reply to ejection report for basketball.

R1 on 3rd, R2 on second base. Illegal pitch. Batter swings at pitch and bat hits catcher's glove and dribbles out in front of home. Runner takes off for first and is (my addition) a) is hit by throw from cacther to 1st base in the back in fair terroritory before 3 foot lane b) in fair terroritory after 3 foot lane. You make the call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has anyone had that play by the way?

[Skahtboi]

Never had it before, but here goes.

The illegal pitch is the precedence here, and since it requires a delayed dead ball to see if the runner reaches first safely and all other runners advance, then i would see what happens from there. In the cases you mention, both a and b, the BR would be safe because of the illegal pitch, even though the BR would ordinarily be out in b.

Did you follow me there? The complete breakdown in both scenarios would be R1 scores, R2 to third, and the BR to first because of the illegal pitch. Nothing on the catcher's obstruction or on the interference call.

Now...let's see how I do.

Scott

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by ronald
Instructor gave me this one in reply to ejection report for basketball.

R1 on 3rd, R2 on second base. Illegal pitch. Batter swings at pitch and bat hits catcher's glove and dribbles out in front of home. Runner takes off for first and is (my addition) a) is hit by throw from cacther to 1st base in the back in fair terroritory before 3 foot lane b) in fair terroritory after 3 foot lane. You make the call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has anyone had that play by the way?

FP or SP? The glove dribbles out in front of the plate? (sorry, couldn't resist)

Assuming that the catcher was throwing to a defender covering 1B and there were no intentional acts of interference on the BRs behalf:

A. is going to be nothing regardless of the game and the application of the CO or IP (fp) would depend on where the BR & runners ended up.

B.
SP - CO cancelled by INT. BR out, runner's return.
FP - CO cancelled by INT. However, the IP has no such caveat. Assuming the coach accepts the penalty and not the play, ball is awarded to batter, R1 scores and R2 goes to 3B.

[greymule]

Assuming SP. Well, when the batter swings, the illegal pitch is nullified. After that, in (a), the ball is in play and the umps will take the CO into account. In (b), as we have recently learned, the interference overrides the CO, so the BR is out and the other runners return.

[Roger Greene]

I think these interference overrules catchers obstruction on the batter only apply to ASA per the oral interpertation at this time.

I still don't buy it for Fed, USSSA, or Pony unless one of these groups adopts the interp. Otherwise, I still believe their rules only state that inteference by an obstructed runner is overruled by the interference, and that the clause does not apply to the different rule govering catcher's obstruction.

Roger Greene

[ronald]

well,

I got two thirds of it right but thought there was an out. Should have read the effect part of illegal pitch first then I think would have got it correct.

It was for fast pitch and was the ball of course.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
I think these interference overrules catchers obstruction on the batter only apply to ASA per the oral interpertation at this time.

I still don't buy it for Fed, USSSA, or Pony unless one of these groups adopts the interp. Otherwise, I still believe their rules only state that inteference by an obstructed runner is overruled by the interference, and that the clause does not apply to the different rule govering catcher's obstruction.

Roger Greene

Roger,

Only talking ASA and I agree, their rulings have nothing to do with any other sanctioning body's rules. But I believe the last sentence of 8.5.B (prior to para 1) is not an oral interpretation, but a hard-copy part of a rule.

[Roger Greene]

Mike,
I'll yield to your knowledge of the ASA rules, but I beleive the arguement some ASA posters have given the the interference overrules obstruction may be interperted to only apply to the obstructed runner may hold some water. One would need to see the sentence structure and read the whole context to see. Something the interperters must do.

Roger Greene

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
Mike,
I'll yield to your knowledge of the ASA rules, but I beleive the arguement some ASA posters have given the the interference overrules obstruction may be interperted to only apply to the obstructed runner may hold some water. One would need to see the sentence structure and read the whole context to see. Something the interperters must do.

Roger Greene

The book states in rule 8:

"Should any act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty would have precedence."

Where is the need for interpretation? Seems to me that if the rule was meant to be applied to specific scenarios, the word "any" would not be included in the rule.

[kellerumps]

Roger,

As much as I disagree with the rule and wording, Mike is correct when it comes to ASA ball. The word "ANY" removes an interpritation. It is pretty black and white.

In the NCAA rulebook, it states the INT and OB must happen to the same runner for the INT to take precidence. That makes sense to me.

I haven't looked at the Federation Rule's to see(we don't really call that much H.S. ball anymore.).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by kellerumps

In the NCAA rulebook, it states the INT and OB must happen to the same runner for the INT to take precidence. That makes sense to me.

Speaking of NCAA rulebook, I understand they have actually included an prescribed umpire's signal and mechanic for ejecting someone.

And I thought I was anal about this type of stuff

[kellerumps]

Speaking of NCAA rulebook, I understand they have actually included an prescribed umpire's signal and mechanic for ejecting someone.

And I thought I was anal about this type of stuff

Yep....That is new this year in the NCAA Umpires Mechanics Manual. I guess they wanted to leave no stone unturned. We think it's kinda funny as well.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by kellerumps
Speaking of NCAA rulebook, I understand they have actually included an prescribed umpire's signal and mechanic for ejecting someone.

And I thought I was anal about this type of stuff

Yep....That is new this year in the NCAA Umpires Mechanics Manual. I guess they wanted to leave no stone unturned. We think it's kinda funny as well.

Personally, I have gotten away from giving any signal. I just tell them they are gone and inform the manager/coach that I need a substitute. To make sure the other team and scorekeeper knows what is going on, I let them know of the ejection when I offer the substitute. If it gets announced, the player or coach will announce it through their actions.

My last ejection came last year in Plant City and my partner didn't even know about it until two innings later. I don't believe you need to put on a show to get your point across.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Speaking of NCAA rulebook, I understand they have actually included an prescribed umpire's signal and mechanic for ejecting someone.

And I thought I was anal about this type of stuff

OK... for all of us NCAA-deprived folks - what is the NCAA prescribed signal and mechanic?

I would guess it's not spinning around, pointing to the sky, and shouting "yer outta here!"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

OK... for all of us NCAA-deprived folks - what is the NCAA prescribed signal and mechanic?

I would guess it's not spinning around, pointing to the sky, and shouting "yer outta here!"

I only got a quick glance as it wasn't that important to me, but you are not far off.

Kellerumps can probably better describe it.