Illegal Pitches???

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Yes, but what about the pitcher who takes her position on the plate with hands together, waits for the batter, takes her signal, and then separates. I HAVE seen this - and have had a partner IP it.

I agree with your partner and not have waited for the separation.

And yes, it is 10' deep. Tried to have it changed a couple years ago, but ASA folks wouldn't buy it.

[Tex]

IRISHMAFIA
I share the same views. There is nothing in the rule book that states the batter has to be in the batter's box before an illegal pitch can be called. Keep in mind, illegal motions were made by the pitcher while standing on the pitcher's plate waiting for the batter to enter the batter's box.

What do you do if a runner (any base) steps off the base during this time?

How can the umpire call the runner out for leaving the base early and not call any illegal pitches? Both the runner and the pitcher were waiting for the batter to enter the batter's box.

Why reward the pitcher (defense) and not the runner (offense)?

[IRISHMAFIA]

I guess I should also add that I'm not suggesting an umpire go looking for boogers. Remember, the umpire can suspend play at any time especially to turn and direct the batter to the box

And example to what Tex is referring happened a few years ago to UCLA while Sue Enquist was still in the 3B box. Pitcher was in the circle, and the runner on 3B wondered off the base supposedly to clear a stone in the basepath. 3B umpire immediate killed the ball and declared the runner out. Now, there was no effort on the runner's behalf to advance and neither the pitcher or batter prepared for a pitch.

If I remember correctly, the coach didn't care for the call, but didn't dispute that it was the incorrect ruling.

[EsqUmp]

Always consider the intent of the rule. The purpose of requiring the pitcher to step onto the pitcher's plate with her hands separated is to prevent the pitcher from quick pitching. If the pitcher steps on with her hands together, then the batter gets set, then the pitcher separates and pitches probably isn't quick pitching. If the batter doesn't even know what the pitcher is doing, the batter isn't being deceived. Realistic officiating would likely result in not calling technical violations such as this.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Always consider the intent of the rule. The purpose of requiring the pitcher to step onto the pitcher's plate with her hands separated is to prevent the pitcher from quick pitching. If the pitcher steps on with her hands together, then the batter gets set, then the pitcher separates and pitches probably isn't quick pitching. If the batter doesn't even know what the pitcher is doing, the batter isn't being deceived. Realistic officiating would likely result in not calling technical violations such as this.

But we do need consider precedent and consistency.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Always consider the intent of the rule. The purpose of requiring the pitcher to step onto the pitcher's plate with her hands separated is to prevent the pitcher from quick pitching. If the pitcher steps on with her hands together, then the batter gets set, then the pitcher separates and pitches probably isn't quick pitching. If the batter doesn't even know what the pitcher is doing, the batter isn't being deceived. Realistic officiating would likely result in not calling technical violations such as this.

So when the pitcher, standing on the pitcher's plate, brings the hands together to adjust the glove on the non-pitching hand, separates, steps back off the pitcher's plate, then steps back on the pitcher's plate should just be ignored because it is a technicality and the batter wasn't deceived?

Okay, got it.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Always consider the intent of the rule. The purpose of requiring the pitcher to step onto the pitcher's plate with her hands separated is to prevent the pitcher from quick pitching. If the pitcher steps on with her hands together, then the batter gets set, then the pitcher separates and pitches probably isn't quick pitching. If the batter doesn't even know what the pitcher is doing, the batter isn't being deceived. Realistic officiating would likely result in not calling technical violations such as this.

Any other rules you want to have ignored?

[EsqUmp]

I certainly didn't say to ignore anything. My point was that if officials had a better understanding of the intent of a rule, they can address the situation in a realistic manner. Not everyone driving 31 mph in a 30 mph zone requires a police officer to issue a ticket.

[EsqUmp]

If the batter isn't even in the batter's box, you're going to start banging illegal pitches in that situation? Have you ever considered calling "time" and letting them regroup?

[IRISHMAFIA]

I certainly didn't say to ignore anything. My point was that if officials had a better understanding of the intent of a rule, they can address the situation in a realistic manner. Not everyone driving 31 mph in a 30 mph zone requires a police officer to issue a ticket.

That's correct, only the ones caught get the ticket.

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone cite what THEY believe the intent of the rule is to ignore or apply their own application, Bill Gates and I would share the same investment counselor.

Unless one was involved in the discussion when the rule was enacted or has received authoritive info (which means the person providing it met the previous requirement), I would question any opinion not backed up by published rule, interpretation or clarification.

You wouldn't believe how many people have told me the intent of the 1-1 count in SP and not one has gotten it right.

Let's concentrate on this comment:

If the batter isn't even in the batter's box, you're going to start banging illegal pitches in that situation? Have you ever considered calling "time" and letting them regroup?

No one said you couldn't suspend play, but so what? Let's say the batter is in the box and requests time after the pitcher has taken her sign and puts her hands together. The umpire states "time" and raises his/her hand to indicate to the pitcher not to throw the ball. Batter steps out with the front foot only, tugs on her shirt and steps back in. The umpire states and/or signals "play".

If the pitcher then comes with the pitch, are you going to call an IP because she did not step back and reset?

[EsqUmp]

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA;809915]That's correct, only the ones caught get the ticket.


WRONG ANALYSIS: Obviously only the ones who get caught get the ticket. But that doesn't mean that everyone who gets caught gets a ticket. Use some common sense and exercise some discretion.

No one likes an official who goes out on the field looking to teach everyone just how smart he is when it comes to the rules. Normally, it is that official who is universally disliked.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

WRONG ANALYSIS: Obviously only the ones who get caught get the ticket. But that doesn't mean that everyone who gets caught gets a ticket. Use some common sense and exercise some discretion. Thirty years ago I would agree with this, but not today. If a cop is going to go through the trouble of pulling you over, at least in my part of the world, you are going to get a ticket.

No one likes an official who goes out on the field looking to teach everyone just how smart he is when it comes to the rules. Normally, it is that official who is universally disliked.

If you read this thread, you will note that we are talking about the rule and it was clearly stated that no one is suggesting an umpire go looking for trouble.

There is a reason there are rules in place and many of the softball organizations are very specific with their rules unlike some other sports that are vague in their rules and quite often reliant upon interpretations.

[rant]

The only problem with people determining intent and using discretion instead of following the rules is that the teams never know what type of game they are going to get. I see and hear this all the time. If you read team-oriented boards, it is a common complaint that this umpire/UIC said this or did that one weekend and they got something completely different the next. On at least two occasions in the past six years I have witnessed coaches being ejected at an 18U National and a 16U National simply because there were conflicting rulings by local umpires and then they hit the Nationals where the umpires apply the real rules.

No matter who was right or wrong, it is the umpire and, in this case, ASA that are going to look bad and suffer the loss of integrity and not just in the mind of that one coach.

Same thing with equipment. I saw the majority of 4 of 24 teams, and a few from each of a fair amount of other teams have to go to a couple sporting goods stores in PA to get legal facemask for batting helmets because they were told by their local associations that as long as the had a facemask to protect the batter's face, they really didn't have to have the NOCSAE approval stamp.

I do not disagree with your belief that discretion at some level, or preventive umpiring if you prefer, is important at times, but where you draw that line can be problematic. And if you turn a blind eye to an obvious violation once, do you let it go a second, third or fourth time?

Remember, the question was on procedure and what happens when there is a violation. The pitcher is given a specific procedure to follow. Yes, there is a purpose for it, but every pitcher is expected to follow that procedure every time. What happens in your world when you fail to follow specific procedures? In my world, we either lose business or our offer is disqualified from consideration.

Again, I don't think umpires should go looking for problems. And I don't have a problem if when an umpire sees something that may be questionable saying something to the coach. That doesn't mean that should be the standard instead of the exception.

[/rant]

Happy New Year

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Yes, but what about the pitcher who takes her position on the plate with hands together, waits for the batter, takes her signal, and then separates. I HAVE seen this - and have had a partner IP it.

Don't want to rehash this entire thread, but a follow-up on this one point:

From the most recent ASA Case Book, 2011

PLAY 6.1-3
May Fl take the pitching position with the hands already together?
RULING: No, this is illegal. Fl’s hands must be apart when stepping onto the pitcher’s plate and
while taking the signal. An illegal pitch should be called as soon as the violation occurs. (6-IA)

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Don't want to rehash this entire thread, but a follow-up on this one point:

From the most recent ASA Case Book, 2011

PLAY 6.1-3
May Fl take the pitching position with the hands already together?
RULING: No, this is illegal. Fl’s hands must be apart when stepping onto the pitcher’s plate and
while taking the signal. An illegal pitch should be called as soon as the violation occurs. (6-IA)

But is she taking the pitching position if the catcher is not yet in a position to catch a pitched ball?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

But is she taking the pitching position if the catcher is not yet in a position to catch a pitched ball?

And if you read the citation, it had nothing to do with the catcher's location.

I agree that the pitcher cannot be in the pitching position until the catcher is in position. However, what do you do when the pitcher still steps on the PP with the hands together when the catcher enters the box, hesitates (take signals) and then separates and pitches? Would that be an IP or a NP?