Let me repost this for you
If the pitcher stops or hesitates in her delivery as a result of the batter stepping out of the box or holding up her hand to request time, it shall not be an illegal pitch.
If the pitcher actually releases the ball it can not be called an Illegal pitch ergo it is a legal pitch.

However, if the batter steps out of the box or holds up her hand to request time and the pitcher legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live.
Pretty simple pitch is legal^^^ any ball released in this situation is a strike no matter what. With that said if a ball does hit the batter call it a dead ball strike

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.
If the pitcher fails to throw in this situation kill the play "No'pitch"

lf the umpire judges the batter's action to be a deliberate attempt to create an illegal pitch, the umpire will penalize according to 3-6-9.
(3-6-9 Team personnel shall not call "time" 0r use any command or commit any act for the purpose of causing an illegal pitch.)--Penalty-- PENALTY: (Arts. 2 through 10) The umpire shall issue a team warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender 0n that team shall be restricted to the dugout/bench lot the remainder ol the game.(Arts. 8, 9, 10) For coach' es who violate, depending on the severity of the act, the umpire may issue a warning, restrict the offender to bench/dugout for the remainder of the game or eject the offender..

I don't have any problem understanding your position. But the rule as written doesn't back it up. Manny has a different take and I don't think the rule backs him up either.
We all agree that legally delivered pitches are strikes and that if the pitcher stops we have a no pitch.
The discussion I'm pressing here is solely the point where the pitch is illegal for a reason other than non-delivery. Crow hops, leaps, (double touch that occurred before the batter steps out, perhaps?).

So there are three possibilities here.
A) The rule is meant to be taken literally. Delivered pitches are only legal if legally delivered. Illegal pitches cancel the strike.
B) The rule means to say that all delivered pitches are legal. Including the utterly ridiculous illegalities overhand, pushing off from the front of the circle, etc. In this case the phrasing "legally delivered" means delivered without regard to whether it is actually done legally.
C) The rule means to say that all illegal pitches result in a no pitch. Unfortunately, it doesn't come close to saying this even though it makes the most sense.

Manny says C. You and MD say B. I don't know but see serious problems with B. Repeating yourself isn't convincing me.

Was this answered: If a legally delivered pitch is headed directly at the batter and she steps out of the box to avoid it but is hit anyhow is it a HBP or a strike?

Hit By Pitch
The batter was in the box at the time of the pitch but bailed to try and not get hit.

Let's not get too far astray; we already have people inferring something the rule neither says nor appears to be the topic/purpose of this particular rule. The rule clearly relates to batters delaying, attempting to control the pitcher's timing, or to disconcert the pitcher.

Here's what the rule says (and doesn't):
1) It talks about whether the pitcher continues legally or doesn't. It doesn't relate at all to a batter avoiding a pitch already legally delivered. The catcher is required to be in the box at the time of the pitch, and can then move to the ball; the batter should be given the same restriction and resulting reaction to the location of the ball. If the batter knows the ball is coming at her BEFORE the pitcher delivers, well, this rule doesn't protect a batter with clairvoyency, she stepped out while the pitcher was still in the act of delivering.
2) It says what it says; it doesn't say no pitch delivered in this circumstance can be illegal, it names two specific things (stops or hesitates) that shall not be an illegal pitch. No other form of illegal pitch is superceded by this rule.
3) When it says the ball remains alive, it should be understood ONLY that this specific action doesn't make the ball dead. Anything that follows that would create a dead ball still creates a dead ball.

For the following sequence, assume the batter does either step out or hold hand up:
a) Pitcher already legally delivered (released) the ball. Call the pitch. (I'm thinking the batter's height may be liberally considered if the ball is over the plate and the batter is no longer in the box.) Enforce every/any other rule that may apply exactly like any OTHER legal pitch.
b) Pitcher already illegally delivered the ball. Call the illegal pitch. Enforce exactly like any OTHER time an illegal pitch is called.
c) Pitcher stops or hesitates. No pitch. This rule says so.
d) Pitcher continues and legally pitches the ball. Live ball strike. This rule says so.
e) Pitcher continues and illegally pitches the ball. Strike called, but also an illegal pitch. Enforce exactly like any OTHER time a strike is called on an illegal pitch.
f) Pitcher continues, legally pitches the ball which hits the batter. Dead ball strike. Enforce exactly like any OTHER time a strike is called on a batter HBP.
g) Pitcher continues, legally pitches the ball, which isn't caught in flight. Live ball strike. Enforce exactly like any OTHER time an uncaught strike is called.

Too many of you seem to be overthinking this rule and its' application.

Thanks for the clarity. Can I add one more to the list from up above?

Pitcher drops the ball. I'm not sure whether to call that hesitation and get c or d since it is a legal pitch (just not so sure I'd call it a delivery).

Judgment. If hesitates or reacts at all (and give the benefit to this one, it is the obviously the easier sell), no pitch; if simply slips during continuous motion, uncaught strike.

I don't think I expect you to believe me, or Insane, or most others. And I kind of see your point that the rule is worded messily - it could be much better.

Your best answer is not to try to puzzle it out here - but to go to a clinic. I can't tell you how often I've heard this exact same argument. Wordsmithers trying to prove their point - arguing against those who are getting their rulings straight from the top. Sounds just like this thread to be honest.

Go to a clinic. OR ask a clinician (not necessarily your assignor, he's probably in the same boat as you unless he goes to clinics often as well).

Steve, I'm extremely reluctant to disagree with you. However, this one line (and this line only) is in disagreement with every clinic I've ever attended. The way it's been explained to us, numerous times, is that if the pitcher continues and pitches the ball, it cannot be illegal, and is a strike - the explanation of WHY is that the batter's actions could have caused whatever illegality happened (the example often used is the batter's actions causing pitching missteps like leaps or landing outside the 24), and TPTB don't want to create a situation where the umpire has to decide whether the batters actions caused the misstep or not - the assumption (and the reason for the "the pitch is ruled to be legal" part of the rule) is that it DID cause the misstep - removing the need for judgement on our part.

So you're saying that the illegal pitch penalty trumps the batter's infraction. Interesting. At least that's how I read it; surely you wouldn't suggest that the batter get a ball and a strike added to her count! :p

I guess I'm just having a hang-up understanding why two illegal pitch situations (pitcher hesitates, pitcher stops) are excused, but the other illegal pitch infractions are enforced.

Mike, why can it not be in illegal pitch? Not saying it always is, but a simple continuation doesn't mean the pitch cannot be illegal.

Personally, I think the ruling is just as "lazy umpire excuse" as the automatic strike for not pulling that bat out of the strike zone.

There's a reason you're having this hang-up...

Just clarified with a state guy (I would put his/her name, except for the "Please don't put my name on that site at all" part of his/her email - but this is about 1 level down from the highest I could think of to ask --- a person that leads breakout sessions at clinics). In his/her words, and I'm copy/pasting here ... "If the batter steps out after the pitcher has begun her delivery, there can't be an illegal pitch. If they deliver, it's legal. If they don't, it's a no pitch."

Because we're to assume (right or wrong) that it was the stepping out that caused the illegal act. We're to not penalize the pitcher for any clumsiness that occurs after the batter disrupted things by stepping out.

Let me ask you, in a simple continuation, what kind of illegal act are you envisioning that a pitcher could commit AFTER beginning her delivery that you think should (not is ... just should, in your opinion) be not blamed on the batter stepping out during the delivery?

Same interpretation has been given here in So Cal from the State NFHS Rules Interpreter.

All due respect, but I've experienced a few occasions where "a state guy" was wrong with his/her rule interpretations. Heck, we had a national staff umpire tell us at a recent clinic that a batter's foot touching the batter's box line does not constitute being within the box.

Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Anything that happens after the batter steps out except where a pitcher hesitates or doesn't deliver the pitch is supposed to be a legal delivery? If that were the case, then there'd be no reason for the words "legally delivers" in the book. Just strike the word "legally" if that is the true intent of the rule.