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

Local meeting discussion again. Fed 7-3-1 Penalty, Effects 2. Basically the batter steps out of box and at the same time the pitcher delivers the ball. Fed says "it shall be called a strike". Does that trump an illegal pitch? Does it trump the batter hit by the pitch? This was discussed here somewhere in the last year or two, but I can't find any link.

Does not trump an IP committed before release. I think it trumps all else as it says "shall", not "may" or anything about ITUJ.

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.

Work backwards. Call the strike because you "shall" call it. Then, if the batter has not reached 1st base (obviously not) and all other runners haven't advanced one base, enforce the illegal pitch.

In reality, I would just enforce the penalty for the illegal pitch, unless somehow the offense may take the result of the play (say on R1's steal, F2 throws the ball into the outfield allowing R1 to score).

As I read it, the pitch is a strike. It can hit her, it can go over the backstop. The pitch is a strike.

No, it's not an illegal pitch or a HBP... it's a strike. Simple.

(The reasoning here is that the batter stepping out could have caused the pitcher to misthrow - causing the IP or HBP... the rule relieves us from having to form any judgement on whether the stepping out did or did not cause that... since it COULD have, it did. Call the strike.)

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

What about "the pitcher legally delivers the ball"?

Lets break it down.
7-3-1-eff2
lf the pitcher stops or hesitates in her delivery as a result ol 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 think this is right. If the action of the batter causes the illegal pitch, then it shall not be an illegal pitch. That doesn't mean it's a legal pitch. If the pitcher stops her delivery, you're in the part about calling no pitch. But what if she does exactly what she's taught in this situation and rockets the ball home. Unfortunately her control is bad and she hits the batter and even more unfortunately, her drag foot was 18 inches off the ground.

go to the next paragraph

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

I don't think you've quite grasped my point so I'm not really sure whether you're trying to tell me I'm wrong or just beating on a strawman. Perhaps you could restate what you think I'm asking before responding to make sure we're on the same page.
Again the rule reads: the pitcher legally delivers the ball,
Well what if the pitcher tosses it in overhand? Still a strike?

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.

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?

howz about a pitch into the dirt. D3K? it's a strike by rule! :D

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?

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

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? :confused: 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).

Small editorial fix! :)

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?

If the batter caused the illegal pitch.

it would still be a D3K. :rolleyes:

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, if the pitcher exceeds two rotations, the pitch is to be called a strike? Or crow hops, it's a strike? Or steps halfway to 1B, it's a strike?

Conceivably, yes. The videos (2 at separate clinics) I saw showed a pitcher misstepping in a way that one would call an ugly crowhop in one case, and in the other showed her misstepping and landing outside the 24 (not "halfway to first" ... but outside the 24 is outside the 24, no matter how far). I honestly can't imagine this occurring in real life and having a picture rotate an extra time.

Seems to me the easier solution, if they want to simply penalize the batter by a strike in almost every case, is to get rid of the "if she stops or hesitates it's a no pitch" part and just simply call it immediately dead if the batter steps out during a delivery and call it a penalty strike. If they are wanting (as clinics and our interpretor say) any missteps by the pitcher to be blamed on the hitter... perhaps they should also blame the pitcher stopping or hesitating on the hitter as well. More consistent.

Yeah, I'll ask for the local take on this when I get a chance.

This isn't wordsmithing, though. The rule very clearly says what Steve said it says. That may not be the way they want it called (it wouldn't be the first such rule), but this isn't getting fancy with the words it's just taking them as written.

Separately in this thread you've quoted "the pitch is ruled to be legal", where does that phrase come from?

7-3-1-eff2
lf the pitcher stops or hesitates in her delivery as a result ol the batter stepping out of the box or holding up her hand to request time, it shall not be an illegal pitch.

But the quoted phrase isn't actually a quote from somewhere?

Huh? I just told you where that is quoted from. Rule 7-3-1, effect 2. Direct quote.

Don't worry, youngump. I don't see those exact words in my rule book either. :p

I'm looking right at it.

:confused: At the exact words, "the pitch is ruled to be legal"? There is no such wording in the Effects 2 paragraph under 7-3-1 in my FED rule book, Mike.

Manny Young Ump was asking about this quote from Mike

And yes it's from the book

Interestingly, I quoted it for you, told you where it was ... and you somehow misquote me. Does my quote say "the pitch is ruled to be legal"? Nope. It says what I quoted. Twice. Verbatim. "lf 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."

Man, moderating must be a really tough gig.

How do you manage?

Groan...

Folks, please refer to youngump's post #49. Read the last sentence that starts with "Separately in this thread..."

OK - I found where I used the phrase referred to. I was not quoting the rulebook there, I was summarizing the rule I quoted 3 times - using quotes to separate the phrase instead of putting hyphens between each word - which is hard to read. It was not a quote of the rule. Sorry for the confusion.

I have been following everything said since I first posted the question. Haven't said much (yes, I am a lurker;), but I've surmised a couple of things. One is that there isn't a definitive, clear answer to this question. And two is that there should be. This is obviously a poorly worded group of rules that seems to want to do the right thing but can't get out of it's own way. I wish (and it's just a wish) that the Fed had a "hotline" if you will to clarify things like this. I believe NCAA had "Ask Dee" a few years back. I've found, like some have said, that the state guy doesn't always know what their talking about. They're just giving personal opinions that aren't necessarily any more learned than mine.

At the end of the day, it is highly unlikely that a pitcher is going to deliver a pitch illegally (leap, crowhop, violation of the 24, etc.) after the batter steps out of the box. The two scenarios in the book--a legally delivered pitch or an aborted motion--are the expected outcomes. So it probably doesn't make much difference that the book doesn't cover it.

it is likely that the pitcher if she is unable to stop her motion, will slip off an errant pitch into the dirt, and if it is a D3K, the runner can earn getting on base.

that's fair. :rolleyes: