I stand corrected, FED states

However, I've lost the train of thought as to how this relates to the OP question of an illegal pitch....
Let me go back and see if I can get back in the groove (Embarrassed)

Okay, I'm working on ASA, but let's go with this NFHS rule for a second.

This would cover the OP assuming you consider the act of bringing the hands together part of the pitching motion.

However, the comment I'm questioning is starting a pitching motion before the hands are separated. And again, even if there were something in ASA, now you would need to define a "pitching motion" 'cause there are probably as many of those as there are umpires.

In my original response, I was just responding to the technical point about when the pitch starts by rule, not whether the OP pitcher was violating any rule.

Definitionally in ASA, nothing before the hands separating is part of the pitch, so if it was illegal in ASA, it would have to be illegal preliminaries, not illegal pitching motion per se. re: the OP, the pitcher is not violating any of the preliminaries with the possible exception of the 1 sec touch, and by interpretation, ASA allows touch and go, so nothing there, either.

NFHS, OTOH, allows the umpire to determine the start of the windup as the start of the pitch, which can occur before the hands separate, but not before the hands come together. So, again, the OP pitcher is not violating any NFHS rule, either (apart from the technical 1 sec violation).

So prior to the hands coming together any motion resembling a pitch is legal?

Situation: Runner(s) on base outs don't matter. After getting her signals the pitcher strides forward, drags her pivot foot and windmills but does not throw the ball. She remains inside the circle and never brought her hands together. Runner(s) seeing what they believe is a pitch leave their base(s). Runner out for being off base with F1 having the ball in the circle or illegal pitch? If illegal pitch which rule did she violate ASA or FED?

Paul

NFHS 6-1
asa 6

I'm simply stated that your original comment had nothing backing it up in the rules.

Play above, this is an IP based on the effect of violating the preliminary requirements to the pitch, 6.1.E. Wasn't there just a recent discussion on an IP & LBR violations on same act? Would not the IP negate the effect of the LBR violation?

Tom's citation is useful, but the word "immediately" can throw a wrench into that discussion. ;)

No more so than the use of the same word in 8-7-T-1, 3a, 3b... ;)

IMO, (here we go :D ), apples and oranges. In the LBR, immediately is a time factor. In delivering the ball, it can be a matter of action.

Once the pitcher separates, if she uses a windmill delivery, she has already moved her pitching arm and the ball toward the plate. By bringing it around a second time, she has actually delayed the release of the ball, hence did not deliver it "immediately" :rolleyes:

As absurd as it sounds, think of some of the other "absurd" arguments you have heard about certain rules or interpretations over your years as umpiring AND umpires who have bought into them :eek:

This is why we get the big bucks to get the proper interpretations and pass them along.

Disclaimer to all: This is a discussion about the rules, printed and interpretation. Just because we (and I say "we" because I am not the only one involved here) raise an issue or opinion in a conversation does not mean that any of us necessarily buy into them suggest they are examples of fact to be applied in the game.

You know I was just tweaking you... ;)

And, you're right, I have heard a lot of absurd arguments made about the rules (some on this very board, and some very recently! :D).

And that is a good thing. Talk may be cheap, but it can be very important in the learning process.