Fed question#2, "it shall be called a strike"

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Yes it does. There's no middle ground between legal pitch and illegal pitch. If it's not illegal, and it's a pitch - it's a legal pitch.

This is simple, guys - you're making it harder than it is. Don't lawyerize this one.

Then, about the wording
"the pitcher legally delivers the ball". in 7-3-1 Penalty, Effects 2;
any delivery by the pitcher after or while the batter is doing the above is by definition legal. Do you agree?

[Jake26]

Originally Posted by youngump

What if the illegal pitch hits her? Rule doesn't come into play and award first base or the illegal pitch?

I was addressing only the 923am post of today (Thursday)

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

I do now see the words "the pitcher legally delivers the ball". in 7-3-1 Penalty, Effects 2 Still wonder about batter hit by pitch in this scenario.

where the OP is still wondering about the hit-by-pitch scenario and not concerned about an illegal pitch. I was providing a reasonably outrageous "not-only but-also" scenario in which the pitch is still a strike.

[Little Jimmy]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Call us when that happens. Seriously. No need to overanalyze this. The actions of the batter have caused (by rule) any pitching of the ball to be legal. And a strike. If we're pitching on Mars and looking at TWP's - fine ... yes... if the pitcher is starting a normal delivery and the batter steps out, and the pitcher for whatever reason finishes the delivery without stopping and somehow goes overhand ... it's a legal pitch and a strike.But seriously?

I would agree that logic would dictate that the sentence highlighted in red would be the most obvious way to handle this, and that the Fed could save some paper simplifying the rule. But...logic is not what the Fed is best known for. So to stretch it out one more time how about the last words of 7-3-1 Penalty, Effects 2..."it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live". Hit by pitch; live ball? Just saying...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

I would agree that logic would dictate that the sentence highlighted in red would be the most obvious way to handle this, and that the Fed could save some paper simplifying the rule. But...logic is not what the Fed is best known for. So to stretch it out one more time how about the last words of 7-3-1 Penalty, Effects 2..."it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live". Hit by pitch; live ball? Just saying...

Yes, the ball remains live ... until something else (like hitting the batter ... going out of play) kills it. All this means is that if something else is going on (a steal perhaps), it is still allowed to go on. But if it hits the batter - it's dead now because of THAT rule (and not this one).

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

I would agree that logic would dictate that the sentence highlighted in red would be the most obvious way to handle this, and that the Fed could save some paper simplifying the rule. But...logic is not what the Fed is best known for. So to stretch it out one more time how about the last words of 7-3-1 Penalty, Effects 2..."it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live, unless it doesn't". ...

Small editorial fix!

[Manny A]

Hmmm, interesting. I've always believed that if the batter steps out and then the pitcher commits an illegal pitch, the two violations cancel each other out and a No Pitch is declared. I can't see awarding the pitcher with a Strike when she does a leap or crow hop or other clear violation that may or may not have been affected by the batter's action.

IOW, if her pitch is legal by definition, then the strike is called no matter where the pitch ends up, and the ball remains live (unless something else requires us to kill it, such as if the pitch hits the batter, it goes into DBT, etc.) Conversely, if her pitch is not legal by definition, it's a No Pitch.

And, OBTW, if the called strike is an uncaught third strike, I see no reason why we can't allow the batter to attempt to reach first base if the situation warrants. Where in the rule does it say the batter cannot advance?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Hmmm, interesting. I've always believed that if the batter steps out and then the pitcher commits an illegal pitch, the two violations cancel each other out and a No Pitch is declared.

If the batter caused the illegal pitch.

[shagpal]

it would still be a D3K.

the problem I see is that the strike is apparently punitive. allowing the BR to get on base doesn't seem punitive. it seems to reward something the batter might have caused. it allows the batter to get on base with no merit, no attempt. it seems opposite of its intended effect.

Originally Posted by Manny A

And, OBTW, if the called strike is an uncaught third strike, I see no reason why we can't allow the batter to attempt to reach first base if the situation warrants. Where in the rule does it say the batter cannot advance?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

If the batter caused the illegal pitch.

But how will you be able to tell? Suppose the batter steps out and then the pitcher delivers a pitch while leaping? Are you going to judge that the leap had nothing to do with the batter's action?

I believe "legally delivers" in the rule is just that. The pitch must meet all of the requirements to make it legal. If it doesn't, then both the offense and defense gain nothing from the two infractions. I can't imagine that the rule allows us to declare a No Pitch if the pitcher stops then restarts her delivery, but grant the called strike if the pitcher leaps, crow hops, violates the 24", etc.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

But how will you be able to tell? Suppose the batter steps out and then the pitcher delivers a pitch while leaping? Are you going to judge that the leap had nothing to do with the batter's action?

I believe "legally delivers" in the rule is just that. The pitch must meet all of the requirements to make it legal. If it doesn't, then both the offense and defense gain nothing from the two infractions. I can't imagine that the rule allows us to declare a No Pitch if the pitcher stops then restarts her delivery, but grant the called strike if the pitcher leaps, crow hops, violates the 24", etc.

The IP caused by the batter would have to be the pitcher obviously disconcerted and doing something like stumbling, dropping the ball, joining hands twice, pausing in mid-motion, etc. ITUJ !

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Hmmm, interesting. I've always believed that if the batter steps out and then the pitcher commits an illegal pitch, the two violations cancel each other out and a No Pitch is declared. I can't see awarding the pitcher with a Strike when she does a leap or crow hop or other clear violation that may or may not have been affected by the batter's action.

IOW, if her pitch is legal by definition, then the strike is called no matter where the pitch ends up, and the ball remains live (unless something else requires us to kill it, such as if the pitch hits the batter, it goes into DBT, etc.) Conversely, if her pitch is not legal by definition, it's a No Pitch.

But that's not what the rule says either.

The rule reads:
If a pitch is not delivered, a rule has been violated by both the batter and the pitcher. The umpire shall call time, declare "no'pitch" and begin play anew.

I don't see how you can use the rulebook to get to no pitch if the ball is delivered. And if the ball is illegally delivered you don't seem to have the out of just calling it a strike. So the way I think the rule reads delivering an illegal pitch trumps stepping out. I don't think that was the intent of the rule but it seems to me that as written that's what it says.
As to what the intent is, I'm torn between what you've said and what MD has. He's going to call a strike when the pitcher throws overhand home; you're going to call no pitch. I have to feel like you're going to get less trouble with this approach. My other concern with calling it a strike is that if the pitch is illegal the BU is going to have that call. And if you've called it a strike because of the step out, it's going to be a mechanical mess.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

And, OBTW, if the called strike is an uncaught third strike, I see no reason why we can't allow the batter to attempt to reach first base if the situation warrants. Where in the rule does it say the batter cannot advance?

Hmmm... what does delivers the ball mean? There's no definition. So if the pitcher reacts to the batter stepping out by having the ball slip from her hand (what you'd normally call a ball) then do we have an uncaught strike on which the batter can advance. It's not what I'd call a delivery but it seems to otherwise meet the rule.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by youngump

But that's not what the rule says either.

The rule reads:
If a pitch is not delivered, a rule has been violated by both the batter and the pitcher. The umpire shall call time, declare "no'pitch" and begin play anew.

I don't see how you can use the rulebook to get to no pitch if the ball is delivered. And if the ball is illegally delivered you don't seem to have the out of just calling it a strike. So the way I think the rule reads delivering an illegal pitch trumps stepping out. I don't think that was the intent of the rule but it seems to me that as written that's what it says.
As to what the intent is, I'm torn between what you've said and what MD has. He's going to call a strike when the pitcher throws overhand home; you're going to call no pitch. I have to feel like you're going to get less trouble with this approach. My other concern with calling it a strike is that if the pitch is illegal the BU is going to have that call. And if you've called it a strike because of the step out, it's going to be a mechanical mess.

You left out the pitcher stopping or hesitating part of the rule, then:
" If a pitch is not delivered, a rule has been violated by both the batter and the pitcher. The umpire shall call time, declare "no'pitch" and begin play anew. "

The "shall be called a strike" is an imperative form, so must be followed on a legal delivery.

The "ball remains live" has to do with the effect of this rule, not other rules which might subsequently cause a dead ball like HBP or DBT.

Also, I don't think less trouble or mechanics messes justify any interpretation.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

You left out the pitcher stopping or hesitating part of the rule, then:
" If a pitch is not delivered, a rule has been violated by both the batter and the pitcher. The umpire shall call time, declare "no'pitch" and begin play anew. "

The "shall be called a strike" is an imperative form, so must be followed on a legal delivery.

Yes, if the pitcher legally delivers the ball strike. If the pitcher does not deliver the ball "no pitch". If the pitcher illegally delivers the ball, the rule is silent.

[Tru_in_Blu]

In the situations mentioned in this string, if I have a pitcher deliver a pitch overhand, that's clearly an IP. However, if I believe this happened due to the actions of the batter, I will call a no pitch.

A well coached pitcher will continue her delivery of the pitch. This debate may be appropriate for JV/Freshman ball, but usually by the Varsity level, I don't think I'll see it.

In an ASA tournament a few years back, I had a team that had obviously been coached that while on offense in particular situations, the batter would step out of the box after the pitcher's hands came together. In a situation with a runner on 3B, the batter, after getting signs from the 3B coach did just that. The pitcher became confused not realizing if time was called or not, separated her hands and stumbled forward a step. The coach immediately started yelling for an illegal pitch. I called a no pitch and told the coach that if any of his batters did that again, I would toss them. Coach wasn't happy but that's not why I'm there. This was a 14U tournament.