Illegal Pitches???

[Tex]

Illegal Pitches (NFHS)???

I have seen many times where the pitcher steps on the pitching plate and does illegal motions, such as: hands together while stepping onto plate, hands separating and coming together more than once, catcher not in catcher's box, etc.

The problem is the batter is not in the batter's box while these motions are happening.

Talking to the coach most likely, does not correct the problem.

What is the call? Can an illegal pitch be called if the batter is not in the batter's box? Any other advice?

What is the call in ASA?

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Tex

Illegal Pitches (NFHS)???

I have seen many times where the pitcher steps on the pitching plate and does illegal motions, such as: hands together while stepping onto plate, hands separating and coming together more than once, catcher not in catcher's box, etc.

The problem is the batter is not in the batter's box while these motions are happening.

Talking to the coach most likely, does not correct the problem.

What is the call? Can an illegal pitch be called if the batter is not in the batter's box? Any other advice?

What is the call in ASA?

Illegal pitch can be called without the batter in the batter's box.

I'd like to hear a little more about what you are have seen illegal regarding the catcher's box. I think the next time I have an illegal pitch regarding the catcher's box will be the first.

I

[Tex]

Thanks for the reply

NFHS
6-3-1 . . . The catcher shall be inside the lines of the catcher’s box when the
pitcher takes a position to pitch and when the pitch is released.
PENALTY: (Art. 1) An illegal pitch is called.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by Tex

Thanks for the reply

NFHS
6-3-1 . . . The catcher shall be inside the lines of the catcher’s box when the
pitcher takes a position to pitch and when the pitch is released.
PENALTY: (Art. 1) An illegal pitch is called.

That box is huge' though. In over 20 years, I have never come close to seeing a catcher not in the box when the pitcher 'toes up' . I did call an IP last spring in HS ball for a 1st baseman not being in fair territory at the time of the pitch. (still not sure why as a right handed 1st baseman would want to 'straddle' the foul line like that))

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Tex

Thanks for the reply

NFHS
6-3-1 . . . The catcher shall be inside the lines of the catcher’s box when the
pitcher takes a position to pitch and when the pitch is released.
PENALTY: (Art. 1) An illegal pitch is called.

That's the rule, I was just wondering if you've actually had occasion to make that call.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tex

Thanks for the reply

NFHS
6-3-1 . . . The catcher shall be inside the lines of the catcher’s box when the
pitcher takes a position to pitch and when the pitch is released.
PENALTY: (Art. 1) An illegal pitch is called.

What about when the catcher is in front of the box (both feet)?

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What about when the catcher is in front of the box (both feet)?

The box doesn't have a front.
Those lines are only the back edge of the batter's box.

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

The box doesn't have a front.
Those lines are only the back edge of the batter's box.

Please explain how the catchers box does not have a front line?

[pdm54]

Had a catcher set up outside the box once on an intentional walk.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

The box doesn't have a front.
Those lines are only the back edge of the batter's box.

Rule books define the catcher's box as an 8.5 by 10 rectangle.

[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.

[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?