Two Violations in One

[MD Longhorn]

Honestly, this ruling has ALWAYS struck me as odd, despite the case play.

Let me walk you through why.

What's the penalty for an illegal pitch? Specifically, in a play where the pitch is thrown and additional action happens (like, for example, R1 thrown out stealing 2nd, or batter hitting a fly out)

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Honestly, this ruling has ALWAYS struck me as odd, despite the case play.

Let me walk you through why.

What's the penalty for an illegal pitch? Specifically, in a play where the pitch is thrown and additional action happens (like, for example, R1 thrown out stealing 2nd, or batter hitting a fly out)

In your examples, the runner or batter did nothing illegal. I would ask what you would do after an illegal pitch is delivered and an offensive player subsequently violates a rule, such as interferes with a fielder fielding the batted ball. Do you enforce both violations then?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

In your examples, the runner or batter did nothing illegal. I would ask what you would do after an illegal pitch is delivered and an offensive player subsequently violates a rule, such as interferes with a fielder fielding the batted ball. Do you enforce both violations then?

You're asking me what I would do... I would enforce the rules as per this ruling.

Just because I disagree with a ruling doesn't mean I'm going to ignore it on the field.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You're asking me what I would do... I would enforce the rules as per this ruling.

Just because I disagree with a ruling doesn't mean I'm going to ignore it on the field.

From the tone of your response, I get the impression that you mistook my intent. I was really just asking if enforcing two violations applied to all situations, not just this paticular case play.

Say, for example, the batter swings and hits the catcher's mitt while stroking a ground ball to F6. R1 on second base (only runner) interferes with F6 as she runs to third, and there is no play on the BR. Does the penalty option afforded to the offensive head coach for catcher obstruction allow R1 to return to second and award the BR first base? Or do we still penalize R1 despite the catcher obstruction, rule her out for interference, and put the BR on first?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

From the tone of your response, I get the impression that you mistook my intent. I was really just asking if enforcing two violations applied to all situations, not just this paticular case play.

Say, for example, the batter swings and hits the catcher's mitt while stroking a ground ball to F6. R1 on second base (only runner) interferes with F6 as she runs to third, and there is no play on the BR. Does the penalty option afforded to the offensive head coach for catcher obstruction allow R1 to return to second and award the BR first base? Or do we still penalize R1 despite the catcher obstruction, rule her out for interference, and put the BR on first?

Seems to me on the CO, the coach gets the result of the play OR the penalty for the CO. Don't know about half and half, at least, not outside the pub.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Seems to me on the CO, the coach gets the result of the play OR the penalty for the CO. Don't know about half and half, at least, not outside the pub.

So, you're saying that R1's interference of F6 would be ignored if the coach took the CO penalty, and R1 would be returned to second base.

If that's correct, then why the inconsistency? In my OP (which comes from NFHS case play 8.6.21 as BretMan pointed out), both the illegal pitch and the LBE penalties are enforced. Why not enforce both penalties here? Or am I missing something...?

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by Manny A

...

Say, for example, the batter swings and hits the catcher's mitt while stroking a ground ball to F6. R1 on second base (only runner) interferes with F6 as she runs to third, and there is no play on the BR. Does the penalty option afforded to the offensive head coach for catcher obstruction allow R1 to return to second and award the BR first base? Or do we still penalize R1 despite the catcher obstruction, rule her out for interference, and put the BR on first?

Speaking ASA, we enforce the INT and the CO. 8.5.B note 2. [Edit] WRONG! See June 2008 rules clarifications

Looking for similar language or a case play for NFHS.

[bigsig]

Just don't understand how you could have an illegal pitch when you have a no pitch call. Can a no pitch be illegal also?

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by bigsig

Just don't understand how you could have an illegal pitch when you have a no pitch call. Can a no pitch be illegal also?

Because when a runner leaves the base early, the umpire is to declare "no pitch." It doesn't negate whether something was illegal beforehand. It's simply the mechanic. Perhaps some would prefer that "time" be called instead.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

Speaking ASA, we enforce the INT and the CO. 8.5.B note 2.

Looking for similar language or a case play for NFHS.

I think we had a very long discussion on this a while back. Reading the RS, it seems that could refer only to the person obstructed being involved in the interference.

Would not accepting the enforcement of the rule negate the play? And if you negate the play, how can you have interference on a play that didn't exist?

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I think we had a very long discussion on this a while back. Reading the RS, it seems that could refer only to the person obstructed being involved in the interference.

Would not accepting the enforcement of the rule negate the play? And if you negate the play, how can you have interference on a play that didn't exist?

You're right, of course. See the ASA Rules clarification from June 2008. Now I'm trying to figure out where I heard wrong.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I think we had a very long discussion on this a while back. Reading the RS, it seems that could refer only to the person obstructed being involved in the interference.

Would not accepting the enforcement of the rule negate the play? And if you negate the play, how can you have interference on a play that didn't exist?

And this logic, which completely makes sense to me, is exactly the reason I DON'T think the logic is correct on the OP. Seems to me - if we're being consistent... the offense should be allowed to accept the penalty for the IP, which wipes out the leaving early just like it wipes out the INT on Manny's play.

But... I don't make the rulings, I just enforce them.