Two Violations in One
 

Interesting scenario that our UIC presented in a NFHS rules clinic last night, and wanted to share with y'all.

R1 at third, R2 at first. F1 commits a double-touch, and PU gives the DDB signal while verbalizing "Illegal Pitch." F1 then starts her motion to deliver the ball. Before she releases the ball, R2 leaves the base early. BU sees the violation and calls, "No Pitch! Runner at first left too soon and is Out!"

What is the result of the situation?

I seem to remember this being covered a year or two ago but I cant find it at the moment.

My recollection is you enforce both infractions. R2 is out for leaving early, the batter is awarded a ball, R1 is awarded home.

Your recollection is spot-on.

What if there were two outs? Does R1's run score?

For some reason I remember the answer being yes run scores. Reason was you enforce the penalties in the order that they happened. IP was first so it is enforced first, then runner leaving early is enforced. But can't seem to find the interp to reference.

An exception to the rule is when the pitcher commits and illegal pitch that induces the runner to leave early. For example, the pitcher can't make three revolutions before releasing the ball, causing the runner to leave at the point where the pitcher would be required to release the ball in order to comply with the revolution guidelines.

If the pitcher makes 3 revolutions and the runner leaves at 2 1/2, enforce the illegal pitch only and warn the pitcher.

This one is straight out of the case book...

8.6.21 SITUATION:

With R1 on third base and R2 on first base, F1 double touches for an illegal pitch. The plate umpire calls an illegal pitch but before the hands separate to deliver the ball, R2 leaves first base on her way to second base. The base umpire calls "dead ball" and calls R2 out.

RULING: R2 is out for leaving first base before F1 released the ball. The illegal pitch is enforced which results in a "ball" awarded to B3 and one base (home) to R1. (6-1-2)


Where is this "exception" documented in NFHS rules?

Aaah, our instructor mentioned it was out of the case book. But, silly me, I looked for it under Rule 6.

Obviously, the call of "dead ball" on the LBE violation is not correct.

I don't remember this being in the rules, but rather as a memorandum.

Obviously you aren't going to call a runner out who leave the base early if they left BECAUSE of the illegal pitch.

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)

Don't enforce the penalty when the team who offended is benefited from its enforcement. In my proposed play, the defense induced the offense into a violation by creating an illegal pitch. You don't reward the defense for violating the rules and causing a secondary infraction.

Rules + Common Sense = You don't call the runner out

On the case play cited, no double touch I ever saw induced a runner to leave early. Enforce exactly like the case book suggests. This isn't a common sense ruling.

The exception is when the illegal pitch actually causes or induces the runner to leave early. The obvious example is if the pitcher holds on to the ball after passing the hip and makes a 2nd full revolution, or simply never delivers the pitch. Runners that time the release that never happened shouldn't be penalized for the violation clearly caused by the defense's illegal action.

But this case play has NOTHING to do with that type of situation. Don't overthink when lead down the wrong path.

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?

I wrote an exception to the rule application and gave a specific example. Read correctly so you aren't lead down the wrong path.

Why? In HS play this is a dead ball.....

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.

Semantically, it should be 'no pitch' - with the EFFECT of a dead ball, no?

At least, here in NY (ASA JO with Jay Miner's variations) it is.

:( :( :rolleyes:

Tell me about it - Jay is the NYSSO Rules Interp - lucky us, huh?

At the time of the double-touch, it is a delayed dead ball because of the illegal pitch. When the runner leaves the base early, the ball is dead.

When an illegal pitch is committed and the batter and all runners do not advance safely one base, then the offensive team has the option to take the result of the play or enforcement of the illegal pitch penalty.

In this case, the result of the play is the runner on 1st base being called out for leaving early. There is no other movement with runners and no thrown pitch. The offense could elect this result. This is the totality of the play.

Or, because not all runners advanced safely, the offense can choose to take the penalty for an illegal pitch. It is a ball on the batter and each runner is advanced one base.

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. :D

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...?

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.

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.

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. :mad:

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.

So, in a nutshell, when the offensive coach accepts the penalty for an IP, it wipes out anything that happened during subsequent play except for a LBE violation, at least in FED play.

My head hurts....

True.

I guess my question is ... why the exception. Especially, why THAT exception and no other. Seems to make more sense to me WITHOUT the exception entirely.

Specific to the IP/Leaving Early: ASA too. March 2008 rule clarifications.

As explained to me (not that I made the decision):

In all OTHER situations, the play may be, and probably will be, affected by the two teams knowing there was an illegal pitch called; if the defense fails to play it out, or the offense accomplishes something better than the IP award, the offense deserves that result (or the option, anyway). If not, the fall back result is the illegal pitch award.

But, unless the illegal pitch actually induces a runner to leave the base early (the EXCEPTION noted earlier), that action is completely unrelated to the illegal pitch, and the offense violated in a way that shouldn't be rewarded by being erased. Most often, not only is it unrelated, but the runner leaving early would most often precede the illegal pitch call (leaping, crow hop, either foot leaving the pitcher's plate, stepping outside the 24).

Conversely, most early (prior to the actual pitch) violations (double touch, applying a foreign substance, not wiping after going to the mouth, failing to pause with hands separated to take or simulate taking a signal) typically result in a "no pitch", anyway, so a violation of leaving early would be ignored under the exception.

So, the individual (KR) that made the initial ruling for ASA (I believe it was made before MS duplicated for NFHS, or DA duplicated for NCAA) stated he believed that was the appropriate penalty based on what happened, when it happened, and if ignoring (or erasing) the violation should be appropriate.

Thanks Steve for the inside info. Still don't agree, but at least I can understand why they went there.