ASA Rules Question

[default]

Got my 2013 "Participant Manual" and as I often do when bored in the winter doldrums I started reviewing the rules.

This time, something that I probably glossed over in the past kind of made me wonder. Under the pitching rule 6 at least four times when talking about the effect of an illegal pitch in which the batter hits the ball and all runners advance one base safely I see the phrase:

"If the batter hits the ball and reaches first base safely, and all other runners have advanced at least one base on the batted ball, the illegal pitch is nullified. All action as a result of the batted ball stands. No option is given. (OK so far, it's this next part that I'm having trouble with) When a runner passes a base, that runner is considered to have touched that base."

Why is this last sentence there?

So, illegal pitch called, runners first and second, batter strokes a single to center. Runner on second is waved home, and short-cuts third base missing it completely and scores. Has the defense forfieted the right to an appeal play because of the illegal pitch call?

 

[default]

While waiting for Bretman, I'll give my 2 cents worth.

Yes, the runner would have been awarded that base so, she is judged to have "Touched" the base.

Now if she were to grossly miss the base, say by 2 feet or more (like she has been coached to do in that circumstance, wink, wink), then I would be a little upset as the opposing coach but there is nothing that I could do about it, except coach my pitcher not to throw illegal pitches. Now 99% of 12U girls know one thing, ball is hit, run like a deer and touch the base or coach is going to tear me a new one.

 

[default]

The appeal opportunity would still be in affect because it only protects the batter/runner to the next base. Once they pass the base whether they touch it or not, they are considered to have touched it, does not mean they can run straight across the field from 2nd to home and be safe! By continuing on to the next base they are at jeopardy to be put out on the appeal or the result of the play.

 

[default]

Lady Knights is correct. The sentence is there for any action the runner(s) make willingly after reaching the next base safely, say for example a runner is on 1st, and a single to center is hit off an illeagal pitch, the runner on 1st tries to go to 3rd on the play, and is thrown out. That runner is out and the play stands as is. There is no nullified pitch. I gets interesting though as there are numerous differences in rules between governing bodies: ie. ASA, USSSA, Federal etc.

 

[default]

The last sentence is consistent with other rules regarding baserunning. It's main purpose is to clarify that a runner missing a base is considered to have reached it safely, therefore missing a base does not preclude the illegal pitch from being nullified. The defense can still appeal the missed base.

 

[default]

See to me when I read "that runner is considered to have touched the base" by passing it, there is nothing to appeal. Would like to know why this was written in.

Bill this is not something I can coach young players. But, I do see where an older kid with a lot of savvy can exploit it.

 

[default]

See to me when I read "that runner is considered to have touched the base" by passing it, there is nothing to appeal. Would like to know why this was written in.

If the batter hits the ball and reaches first base safely, and all other runners have advanced at least one base on the batted ball, the illegal pitch is nullified. All action as a result of the batted ball stands. No option is given.

It was put in to clarify that missing a base satisfies the condition of that runner having advanced at least one base in regards to nullifying the illegal pitch. It is the same as 8.3.B and does not take away the defense's right to appeal it under 8.7.G. It simply clarifies that missing a base doesn't provide the offense with the option of using the illegal pitch to undo negative results of the batted ball - including an out recorded by an appeal of the missed base.

 

[default]

Don`t know about most of you but when ever I have had an umpire call an illegal pitch (usually the pitcher leaping causing the pivot foot to leave the ground) they start yelling and raising their hands to stop all play before the ball enters the zone causing a disruption of the play never really allowing the batter a chance to swing and a potential play to happen.

 

[default]

It was put in to clarify that missing a base satisfies the condition of that runner having advanced at least one base in regards to nullifying the illegal pitch. It is the same as 8.3.B and does not take away the defense's right to appeal it under 8.7.G. It simply clarifies that missing a base doesn't provide the offense with the option of using the illegal pitch to undo negative results of the batted ball - including an out recorded by an appeal of the missed base.

To me your explanation would be understood if that sentence was not there. Perhaps I'm overthinking it but if you change the word "touched" to "reached" it would make better sense IMO.

 

[default]

I'll go with what SoCal Dad is saying...

"Runners passing a base are considered to have touched it" is a general statement that applies to all base running situations. But that statement alone is maybe too general. You also need to remember another general statement that goes hand-in-hand:

Runners passing a base are considered to have touched it UNTIL/UNLESS the missed base is properly appealed.

If a runner misses a base, she doesn't just get a "freebie". She is still subject to being called out if the defense appeals it.

But I don't think all that was the main reason for having this statement in the illegal pitch rule. The rules about base running, missed bases and appeal plays are well covered in detail in the section of the rule book that addresses base runners. Why would they stick a rule about base running in the middle of the pitching rules?

That sentence is there just to clarify the illegal pitch penalty and when it can be ignored. It is there to clarify a situation like this:

Runner on first. Pitcher commits an illegal pitch. Batter bats the pitch into play and safely reaches first base. The runner from first misses second base, then gets thrown out sliding into third.

For the purpose of the illegal pitch enforcement, the runner is considered to have advanced one base, even though she didn't physically touch that one base. In this case, the illegal pitch would be ignored (because everybody advanced at least one base) and the result of the play would stand.

 

[default]

Don`t know about most of you but when ever I have had an umpire call an illegal pitch (usually the pitcher leaping causing the pivot foot to leave the ground) they start yelling and raising their hands to stop all play before the ball enters the zone causing a disruption of the play never really allowing the batter a chance to swing and a potential play to happen.

Well, they shouldn't be doing that!

All the umpire should do is extend his left arm, hand in a fist, and state, "Illegal", just loud enough for the batter, or the players in the immediate vicinity, to hear it. The ball stays live and may be batted into play. This should all be done subtly enough that it causes no disruption to the play.

The only time when an illegal pitch becomes an immediate dead ball is when the pitcher fails to complete her delivery and deliver the pitch.

 

[default]

Makes sense thanks

 

[default]

Well, they shouldn't be doing that!

All the umpire should do is extend his left arm, hand in a fist, and state, "Illegal", just loud enough for the batter, or the players in the immediate vicinity, to hear it. The ball stays live and may be batted into play. This should all be done subtly enough that it causes no disruption to the play.

The only time when an illegal pitch becomes an immediate dead ball is when the pitcher fails to complete her delivery and deliver the pitch.

this is grossly abused... they stop everything in probably 90% of games I've seen it called and us coaches don't know that this was incorrect. Thanks for putting us on the straight and narrow Bretman.