need help on NCAA new rule for runner leaving early

[shipwreck]

Please help me get this through my thick skull. Under current NCAA rules, here is the situation. Bases loaded, an illegal pitch happens first, then the runner on first leaves early. Batter gets an in the park home run. The rule book says signal delayed dead ball, let play continue, get with your partners, figure out which happened first, give the opposing coach the option of the play or enforcement of the rule. Then enforce the second violation. When all the smoke clears, how many runs would score? Also, if there are two outs, wouldn't that change the run output? The illegal pitch happened first, so the OC would take the result of the play, 4 runs score. Then you would go to the DC and ask what they want to do. This is where I get confused on how to sort this out. Please help.
Dave

[topper]

It doesn't matter if the IP happened first. If there is more than one rules violation:

12.20.2
"Notes:
1. In determining the result of play, ignore the leaving early violation and apply the effects for any other rule violations in the order in which they occurred. That end result becomes the first option."

In your situation, the OC gets the option of the IP or the in the park HR. Whatever his/her decision is becomes the result of the play when giving the DC the option of the leave early or result of the play. Obviously, in your situation, the DC will take the leave early regardless of which option the OC chooses. The result would be no pitch, runner on first is out.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

Please help me get this through my thick skull. Under current NCAA rules, here is the situation. Bases loaded, an illegal pitch happens first, then the runner on first leaves early. Batter gets an in the park home run. The rule book says signal delayed dead ball, let play continue, get with your partners, figure out which happened first, give the opposing coach the option of the play or enforcement of the rule. Then enforce the second violation. When all the smoke clears, how many runs would score? Also, if there are two outs, wouldn't that change the run output? The illegal pitch happened first, so the OC would take the result of the play, 4 runs score. Then you would go to the DC and ask what they want to do. This is where I get confused on how to sort this out. Please help.
Dave

AFTER the offensive coach chose the result of the play (4 runs), the defensive coach would choose the penalty for leaving early.

NO PITCH
RUNNER OUT
OTHER RUNNERS RETURN TO TIME OF PITCH BASE

[shipwreck]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

AFTER the offensive coach chose the result of the play (4 runs), the defensive coach would choose the penalty for leaving early.

NO PITCH
RUNNER OUT
OTHER RUNNERS RETURN TO TIME OF PITCH BASE

So if you reverse what happened first. Runner leaves first early, then an illegal pitch. Go to DC he will take runner being declared out. Then go to OC on illegal pitch option. He will take in the park home run. Less than two outs, how many runs score? Is it every runs counts except the girl called out for leaving early? Two outs, how many runs score?
Dave

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

So if you reverse what happened first. Runner leaves first early, then an illegal pitch. Go to DC he will take runner being declared out. Then go to OC on illegal pitch option. He will take in the park home run. Less than two outs, how many runs score? Is it every runs counts except the girl called out for leaving early? Two outs, how many runs score?
Dave

Previously stated:

12.20.2
"Notes:
1. In determining the result of play, ignore the leaving early violation and apply the effects for any other rule violations in the order in which they occurred. That end result becomes the first option."

So, 1) ignore the leaving early. Then 2) apply the effect of other violations (illegal pitch); OC will still take the home run. With that result of the play, DC will still take the leaving early.

The only time the final option isn't the leaving early effect is when the pitcher doesn't throw a pitch, or intentionally alters the delivery in a way to create the leaving early violation. No matter what order any other violations occur in.

[IRISHMAFIA]

And what if the leaving early was the result of in IP?

[MD Longhorn]

Under this rule, as a pitcher, every once in a while with runners on, I'm going to not release the pitch on the first windmill and continue around for a 2nd one before pitching. Most runners will run early - I get an out. Later, after they've seen this several times, my runners are glued to their bags when I'm pitching normally. Win-win. Dumb ruling.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And what if the leaving early was the result of in IP?

I've brought up that very situation and have had the rule repeated back to me which leads me to believe the answer is: "Too bad, so sad".

I guess a good pitcher would be working on a windmill with a hesitation....

On another note.... The timing of an appeal could be very interesting...

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

So if you reverse what happened first. Runner leaves first early, then an illegal pitch. Go to DC he will take runner being declared out. Then go to OC on illegal pitch option. He will take in the park home run. Less than two outs, how many runs score? Is it every runs counts except the girl called out for leaving early? Two outs, how many runs score?
Dave

No, see Topper's answer and reference.
I'm not sure why, but leaving early is always the last option.
There is a multi-page guidance of scenarios which I went over at the beginning of the season.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

No, see Topper's answer and reference.
I'm not sure why, but leaving early is always the last option.
There is a multi-page guidance of scenarios which I went over at the beginning of the season.

Did you get as bad of a headache as I did after reading all 11 pages and trying to keep all the different scenarios straight in your head??

[IRISHMAFIA]

I understand the reasoning behind the change, but there are just so many possible post-infraction scenarios, there just has to be a better way to address it.

I still believe this change came out of a few "what ifs" in a game where a coach believes s/he came out on the short end.

Much like an INT call, sometimes is may just be more prudent to stop everything and apply the rule, reset and start all over. After all, as we all know, you can "what if" everything to death and still never come up with a perfect resolution.

[topper]

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by topper

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.

SHHHHH...some college coach may hear you and propose this as a rule change......

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.

And it could ASSUMING just about everything that happens afterward would have happened had the umpire not declared it a dead ball.

But you run into the same set of convoluted issues if you try to extend the play. You think you have umpires in different areas, hell, in the same area come up with some TWP rulings now? Not a real big fan of KISS the band, but definitely KISS, the acronym.

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You think you have umpires in different areas, hell, in the same area come up with some TWP rulings now? Not a real big fan of KISS the band, but definitely KISS, the acronym.

Sorry, TWP?

Not a real big fan of either the band or the acronym when it comes to umpiring.

IMO, the ASSUMPTION is made when an umpire declares the dead ball. Say R1 bumps into F6 while a looping line drive is in the air. BU declares dead ball, then F6 catches the ball before BU is able to call INT. What explanation would be given to the DC to justify the INT ruling? Was she prevented from making the play?