TA&M vs Baylor If Game

[topper]

Anybody else who watched notice, in the top of the 4th, when the pitcher accidentally hit her glove and loss the ball at the beginning of her pitching motion and then continue with her arm rotation? A ball was called. There was a Baylor runner on 1st. Thoughts?

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by topper

Anybody else who watched notice, in the top of the 4th, when the pitcher accidentally hit her glove and loss the ball at the beginning of her pitching motion and then continue with her arm rotation? A ball was called. There was a Baylor runner on 1st. Thoughts?

Regarding what? An IP call for a violation of 10.6.5?

[topper]

Yes.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by topper

Yes.

Well by a strict interpretation of the rule, yes that was an IP.
So yes, a case can be made for the PU missing a clear IP on national TV.
I think what we saw was the PU demonstrating common sense and an understanding of the intent of 10.6.5.

(If you didn't see the game, the pitch went off her glove and up into the air, kind of like a SP arc, and ended up somewhere between HP, the on deck circle, and the stands, on the 1st base side.)

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by topper

Anybody else who watched notice, in the top of the 4th, when the pitcher accidentally hit her glove and loss the ball at the beginning of her pitching motion and then continue with her arm rotation? A ball was called. There was a Baylor runner on 1st. Thoughts?

This is not an illegal pitch. She has not done anything that qualifies as an illegal act, at least not from the way it is described here. Unless the pitcher made another full 360 degrees (not 359) revolution after the drop of the ball, then you simply have a dropped ball, ball and runners may advance at their own risk.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Anybody else who watched notice, in the top of the 4th, when the pitcher accidentally hit her glove and loss the ball at the beginning of her pitching motion and then continue with her arm rotation? A ball was called. There was a Baylor runner on 1st. Thoughts?

I believe the umpires ruled properly as per 10.7:

10.7 Dropped During Pitch
The effect for a pitch dropped during its delivery varies based on when it happens.
10.7.1 When the ball is dropped by the pitcher before her hands have come together and then separated.
EFFECT—The ball is live. There is no penalty. The base runner(s) may advance with liability to be put out.
10.7.2 When the ball accidentally slips from the pitcher’s hand during the act of delivering the pitch. EFFECT—If the batter does not have a reasonable opportunity to hit the ball, a defensive player may retrieve it, the ball is live, a ball is awarded to the batter, and the base runner(s) may advance with liability to be put out. If the batter would have had a reasonable opportunity to hit the ball but the defensive player retrieves it, obstruction is ruled, the ball is dead and the batter and all other base runners are awarded one base (whether forced or not).
10.7.3 The pitcher shall not deliberately drop, roll or bounce the ball in order to prevent the batter from hitting the pitch.

[Jake26]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

(If you didn't see the game, the pitch went off her glove and up into the air, kind of like a SP arc, and ended up somewhere between HP, the on deck circle, and the stands, on the 1st base side.)

Streaming Online - WatchESPN

Start at the 1:06:00 mark.

[MD Longhorn]

There was no violation on this pitch at all. Just a ball.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

This is not an illegal pitch. She has not done anything that qualifies as an illegal act, at least not from the way it is described here. Unless the pitcher made another full 360 degrees (not 359) revolution after the drop of the ball, then you simply have a dropped ball, ball and runners may advance at their own risk.

You're right.
I stand corrected.....I just watched a replay on ESPN (Watch ESPN). Not even close to a second 360, only went past her hip once.

[topper]

I spoke with one of the crew members right after the game and he said neither he, nor his partners, noticed the arm continue after release. So whether anyone used common sense and considered the intent of 10.6.5 is moot.

Mikes citing 10.7 appears to make the most sense as far as the rule is concerned. The idea of 360 degrees vs 359 degrees makes a difference is not supported in the book. And she did pass the hip again after release. Had she been attempting the old early release change-up many have seen, the exact same motion after release would have warranted an IP call.

In this case I believe the correct call was made, even if accidentally.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by topper

I spoke with one of the crew members right after the game and he said neither he, nor his partners, noticed the arm continue after release. So whether anyone used common sense and considered the intent of 10.6.5 is moot.

Mikes citing 10.7 appears to make the most sense as far as the rule is concerned. The idea of 360 degrees vs 359 degrees makes a difference is not supported in the book. And she did pass the hip again after release. Had she been attempting the old early release change-up many have seen, the exact same motion after release would have warranted an IP call.

In this case I believe the correct call was made, even if accidentally.

Actually, it isn't illegal for two reasons. Both of which I stated. It is only a dropped ball. There is no full revolution after release of the ball. Believe it or not both matter. You can have a dropped ball with an illegal follow through with the arm, now rendering the pitch illegal. Even though she dropped the ball, it is still a pitch (how else would you be able to call the ball on the batter?) and other restrictions must be met.