Pitcher in stretch

quote:

Originally posted by highjump:
I had a pitcher in the stretch with no runners on. Is there any restrictions regarding him having to pause even though no one is on?

Any FED references would be great...Thanks

The Rule is 6-1-3 PENALTY. FED (and only FED) requires a stop from the set even with no runners. Add a ball to the count.

I don't think I've ever seen it called (illegal pitch).

I have called this before in games under FED rules, and some of my partners have called it before. But in my experience, when it is called with no runners on base, it is an egregious violation. But it is called. Immediate dead ball (no pitch) and ball added to batter's count.

I guess I'm just lucky.

I've worked quite a few HS games, and not only have I never seen it called, I've never heard of it being called and I've never had a coach request that it be called.

To be sure - there were some borderline cases, but I was able see a stop in each of them. No one complained, so I guess I got them right.

Admittedly, its clearly in the book but I am sure I have never called this before....

Maybe MST or Jimmy can help with a reasoning of why FED has this.....without runners, I am lost to why this infraction has a penalty.....it may just be a remnant of the old lowest common denominator theory of umpiring.....

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
Admittedly, its clearly in the book but I am sure I have never called this before....

Maybe MST or Jimmy can help with a reasoning of why FED has this.....without runners, I am lost to why this infraction has a penalty.....it may just be a remnant of the old lowest common denominator theory of umpiring.....

The OBR exemption is contained in a comment to the rule. My guess is that either FED copied the rule but not the comment, or the comment came later and FED failed to incorporate it.

LCD is exactly the reason, but it doesn't track. The theory is that it should always be a violation but with runners it's a balk, without it's a ball, therefore it means you have to actually know the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
The theory is that it should always be a violation ...

That's the problem. The rule is there to protect the runner(s), and if there are no runners, a stop is unnecessary.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
The theory is that it should always be a violation ...

That's the problem. The rule is there to protect the runner(s), and if there are no runners, a stop is unnecessary.

Brad Rumble, who first ruled that a pitcher must stop without runners on base, considered failure to stop a "mechanical" balk, and therefore, in his opinion, if a mechanical defect is a violation of the rules in one situation, it should be a violation of the rules in all situations.

Personally, I would have accepted reasoning along the lines of preventing a quick pitch more readily, though still reluctantly. Obviously, it was a bad ruling, but Elliot has allowed it to remain in effect.

Fortunately, I have never witnessed such a violation.

At the risk of sounding insulting to baseball, this rule reeks of "softball" where there are 10,000 ways to throw an illegal pitch, have a ball called or advance runners who can't otherwise lead off or otherwise benefit from the act of the illegal pitch.

I'm jadded but I find it irritating that 3 baserunners (who can't steal on the pitch) can move up based on the horizontal position of the pitcher's front foot on release of the ball or the fact that her front foot may have not held the rubber prior to her moving forward in her wind up.

Be thankful my baseball friends that you don't need a third umpire on the field who's job is dedicated to calling "stupid stuff that doesn't matter".

Don't forget the ever popular lookback rule.