Showing posts with label Rule 2.00 [Pitch]. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rule 2.00 [Pitch]. Show all posts

Sunday, August 11, 2024

Starting from Scratch - No David Bell, It's Not a Ball

When Cincinnati batter Elly De La Cruz stepped out of the batter's box during the middle of Brewers pitcher DL Hall's delivery, the Milwaukee pitcher stopped without throwing the baseball, drawing an argument from Reds manager David Bell, who claimed HP Umpire Phil Cuzzi should have called a pitch clock violation, illegal pitch, balk, or otherwise should have awarded an automatic ball to De La Cruz.

Here's why David Bell was wrong.

As we discussed in MLB Ejection 144 - Jim Wolf (2; Stephen Vogt), a batter's infraction cannot cause a balk (or other violation).

We know that Official Baseball Rule 6.02(a)(1), regarding start-stop balks, does not apply here, because there were no runners on base and the balk rule only applies "if there is a runner, or runners."

With the bases empty, a pitcher can start and stop delivery without penalty, provided they reset and are still able to start a new delivery prior to the expiration of the pitch clock.

However, OBR 5.04(b)(2) Comment, which explicitly applies to balks, also applies to the pitch clock: "If after the pitcher starts their windup or comes to a 'set position' with a runner on, they do not go through with their pitch because the batter has inadvertently caused the pitcher to interrupt their delivery, it shall not be called a balk. Both the pitcher and batter have violated a rule and the umpire shall call time and both the batter and pitcher start over from 'scratch.'" The primary issue for this scenario is, similar to the balk question, there are no runners on base.

OBR 5.04(b)(2) proper states, "The batter shall not leave their position in the batter’s box after the pitcher comes to Set Position, or starts their windup." De La Cruz violated this rule.

The reason the pitch timer is not explicitly mentioned in OBR 5.04 is that the pitch clock is not mentioned anywhere in the Official Baseball Rules—the clock is a policy document, not a rulebook addendum. That is why the start-from-scratch comment to the rule explicitly mentions a runner on base—because without runners, it is not illegal for a pitcher to start-stop, and the rulebook doesn't address the existence of the pitch clock ("clock" and "timer" do not appear in the Official Baseball Rules; those regulations are listed in a separate policy document).

This creates a vacuum of rules coverage, so to bring us to a fair and common sense resolution for this unique situation, we then refer to OBR 8.01(c), the elastic clause for umpires: "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules."

Accordingly, with OBR 5.04(b)(2)'s starting over from scratch instruction for both a pitcher and a batter having "violated a rule"—which happened when De La Cruz stepped out of the box mid-pitch—and 8.01(c) allowing for common sense rules application, no penalty of an automatic ball (or strike) is imposed. The do-over just results in a complete reset.

Video as follows:

Monday, March 13, 2023

Stolen Base on a Foul Ball? Should Runner Have Gone Back?

In the 17th inning of Evansville and Vanderbilt's marathon game, Vandy baserunner R1 Davis Diaz tried to steal second base on a pitch ultimately fouled at the plate, but instead of returning to first base as foul balls generally prescribe, Diaz stayed at second with an umpire standing mere feet away. Was this a legal stolen base or did the fatigue of a 17 inning game factor into a misappropriated 90 feet for the home team?

The answer begins with the definition of a foul ball: "The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out, when…a foul ball is not caught, in which case runners return to their bases" (Official Baseball Rule 5.06(c)(5)), or, because this was a college game, the relevant rule of NCAA 6-2-a: "The ball becomes dead and base runners return when…A foul is hit that is not caught. Runners return and the umpire shall not put the ball in play until all runners have retouched their bases."

No matter the level or how you phrase it, the theme is consistent: foul ball, runners return, right?

Well, there's a little more to it than meets the eye. Replays indicate that baserunner R1 Diaz arrived at and passed second base before Evansville pitcher Nate Hardman begin his motion, of out Set Position, toward home plate. This means that Diaz's advancement to second base was legal despite (ruled defensive indifference with the winning run on third base) the ensuing foul ball because he had already arrived at and occupied second base prior to the pitching motion to home plate: on foul balls, runners are to return to bases occupied at time of pitch.

As for the definition of when, exactly, a pitcher's actions constitute the exact time of pitch, NCAA 2-82 states, "The time of the pitch is (1) in the wind up position, when the pitcher makes any movement habitually connected with the delivery to the plate, or (2) in the set position, when the pitcher begins the natural movement associated with the pitcher's delivery of the ball after the pitcher has come set with both hands together in front of their body."

Accordingly, the runner R1 Diaz successfully advances to second base prior to time of pitch, and thus becomes R2 prior to the foul ball sequence; this means when he returns to his original base at time of pitch, he is returning to second base and not first base.

Video as follows:

Monday, July 23, 2018

UEFL Case Play 2018-6 - Kicked Out of Play [Solved]

Tropicana Field turned into a Little League funhouse Friday night when Marlins batter JT Realmuto hit a double, only to advance all the way to home plate, scoring a run, thanks to a fortuitous base award and series of errors by Tampa Bay Rays fielders Adeiny Hechavarria and Daniel Robertson, highlighting the importance of timing and rules application when it comes to base awards for balls that fall out of play.

Did umpires correctly award bases?
The Play: With one out and one on (R1) in the top of the 7th inning of Friday's Marlins-Rays game, Marlins batter Realmuto hit a fly ball to Rays left fielder Jake Bauers, who fielded the batted ball on a carom off the outfield wall and threw to shortstop Adeiny Hechavarria, who fumbled the throw (Tampa's first error), which bounced into foul ground, spurring third baseman Daniel Robertson to run in and accidentally kick the ball out of play and into the third base dugout (Tampa's second error), resulting in two-base awards for baserunner R1 Brian Anderson and batter-runner Realmuto, which, for both runners, so happened to be home plate.

Case Play Question: Was this the correct ruling (BR and R1 to home plate) or should the base award have been less generous (e.g., BR to third base and R1 to home plate, etc.)? Better yet, imagine yourself as the Replay Official and Rays Manager Kevin Cash opted to challenge the runner placement call. What would you do?

For the sake of simplicity, let's stipulate that batter-runner Realmuto and baserunner R1 Anderson occupied the following positions at the times of the following events by Tampa Bay's fielders:

Defensive Event BR's Position R1's Position
F7's Throw Rounding 1B Past 2B
F6's Error Past 1B At 3B
F5's Error Past 2B Past 3B

Accordingly, in the ever-popular "Time of Pitch vs Time of Throw" (TOP vs TOT) base awards debate, it would appear that umpire Jeff Nelson's crew used a third term: TOE, or "Time of Error." Is this a correct application of rules?

Answer: There are several trains of thought pertaining to this play, which appears by all accounts to be a throw and two accidental kicks, causing the ball to fall out of play. Naturally, if your judgment holds that F5's kick was intentional, then the matter becomes a "Time of Error" (specifically, F5's error) play, with both runners awarded home, and you can stop the analysis right there.

If you believe the fielder accidentally kicked the ball out of play, by strict interpretation of the rule—and interpretation manual—we consider the runners' positions at the time of the throw, and award the batter-runner third base (1B + 2 = 3B).

This play illustrates a rules complication.
Pitfall: A more common sense principle, however, given the complication of two fielders accidentally kicking a ball out of play, suggests a potential consideration of awarding both runners home plate (pursuant to the omnipresent "elastic clause" of umpiring regarding an issue not specifically mentioned in the rules), simply because this is the "common sense and fair play" thing to do for a rule that doesn't precisely fit in this situation.

Neither the original rule nor interpretation manual specifically discusses the issue of a thrown ball that comes to rest (the only consideration is whether or not the ball has remained on the playing field prior to it being kicked/deflected out of play), so there isn't rules support for judging this play based on an impetus-of-the-ball or change of direction/momentum rationale.

However, it is similarly not within the spirit of the rules to allow a thrown ball to remain "thrown" indefinitely. By strict interpretation of the rule, say that a batter hits a sharp ground ball to the right fielder, who attempts to throw him out at first base. The throw deflects off the first baseman's glove and protractedly rolls along the infield, possibly being unintentionally kicked a few times while the batter-runner is able to make it all the way around the bases and to home plate as the fielders unsuccessful pursue this unusually slippery ball, with the shortstop unintentionally kicking the ball into foul territory near left field.

As the batter-runner rounds third base, the third baseman unintentionally kicks the ball into the dugout, and the ball falls out of play a split second before the batter-runner touches home plate. Since the throw initiated by the right fielder occurred prior to the batter-runner touching first base, and this thrown ball was subsequently kicked out of play, strict interpretation of 5.06(b)(4) and the manual would hold that the batter-runner is to be awarded two bases from the time of the throw, or second base (HP + 2 = 2B), even though he has already scored.

Which doesn't make much sense at all...yet, that's what the rule says in its strictest terms. Thus, at some point, this "thrown ball" can no longer be considered a "thrown ball," for the purposes of determining the point of "Time of X." When is a thrown ball no longer a thrown ball? The Definition of Terms might help:
> "A PITCH is a ball delivered to the batter by the pitcher," and;
> "All other deliveries of the ball by one player to another are thrown balls."

The batter is short of 2B upon F6's error.
Thus, when a ball is no longer being delivered by one player to another, it can no longer be considered a thrown ball (naturally, it remains a "live ball"). The problem, then, is MLBUM/PBUC's interpretation that states, "If a thrown ball goes through or by a fielder and remains on the playing field and is subsequently kicked or deflected out of play (unintentionally in either case), the award is two bases from the time of the throw."

Whether or not the ball is "thrown" at this point is immaterial: per MLBUM, the thrown ball went through or by a fielder (F6) and was subsequently kicked or deflected out of play, unintentionally, by F5—there's no time limit, and there's no player limit—the accidental deflection out of play occurred subsequently to the thrown ball that went by a fielder and remained on the playing field. Per the manual, that's two bases from the time of the throw.

Gil's Call: This extreme example of a batter-runner who has already scored being sent back to second base illustrates that, surprise surprise, there's a problem with the rule regarding this situation. The rule doesn't say anything about resetting the so-called "Time of X" timer depending on who touches the ball and when—we just know if the kick was intentional, it's two bases from the time of the kick, and if it was unintentional, the rule wants two bases from the time of the throw, which makes less and less sense the longer the thrown/kicked ball remains alive and on the playing field as the runners continue to advance.

The tag-up rule operates on a similar principle.
Imagine a runner on third base having to wait to tag up on a fly ball until the outfielder catches the batted ball by firmly securing it in his glove—the fielder could easily bobble the ball all the way back to the infield and hold the runner at third (or even double-up the runner for "leaving early"). Thank goodness the powers-that-be put the fielder's first touch into the tagging-up rule—and that rules change was a fairly recent development, too!

SIDEBAR: The retouch rule is another part of OBR that is, shall we say, conflicting, as the Definition of Terms correctly refers to "the instant the first fielder touches the ball," while Rule 5.09(b) states, "legally caught."
Related Post: Clearing Up a Myth - Timely Retouch of a Bobbled Fly (4/27/17).

For this reason, the proper call for this Case Play, in my estimation, is to refer to Rule 8.01(c): "Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules."

And because this is an 8.01(c) call, there are two possible solutions to this Case Play: Either award BR third and score R1, or score both runners. This is what Nelson's crew appeared to have done, and whether because of the crew's decisiveness in awarding bases or Tampa Bay's ignorance, manager Kevin Cash declined to challenge, much less argue the issue of runner placement.

As long as you can explain the rule—including an affinity to understand its shortcomings and being able to apply 8.01(c)—the book will support either decision. The only conclusively incorrect call here would be to hold BR at second and/or prevent R1 from scoring, since two bases are required, the only question being, "from when?"

Official Baseball Rules Library
OBR 5.06(b)(4): "Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance—Two bases when, with no spectators on the playing field, a thrown ball goes into the stands, or into a bench...When such wild throw is the first play by an infielder, the umpire, in awarding such bases, shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the ball was pitched; in all other cases the umpire shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the wild throw was made."
MLBUM (and PBUC): "If a thrown ball deflects off a fielder and goes directly out of play, the award is two bases" [from TOP or TOT, as applicable].
MLBUM (and PBUC): "If a thrown ball goes through or by a fielder and remains on the playing field and is subsequently kicked or deflected out of play (unintentionally in either case), the award is two bases from the time of the throw."
MLBUM (and PBUC): "If a fielder has complete possession of a batted or thrown ball and subsequently deflects or kicks the ball out of play, the award is two bases from the position of the runners at the time the ball was kicked or deflected."
MLBUM (and PBUC): "If, in the judgment of the umpires, a fielder intentionally kicks or deflects a batted or thrown ball out of play, the award is two bases from the time the ball was kicked or deflected."
Related Post: Case Play 2017-9 - The Deflected Error Triple [Solved] (9/14/17).

Video as follows:

Sunday, May 27, 2018

Featured Minor Ejection - Jones & Ump Thurmond

A CanAm League ejection and bench-clearing incident precipitated by a balk & catcher's interference no-call featured an animated discussion between umpire Tyler Thurmond and Miners Manager Bobby Jones, much finger pointing, and a helmet thrown from the dugout at the home plate ump during, what Sussex County promotes as, Family Fun Sunday. Oh, and the benches cleared, too.

Video: Jones & Thurmond argue a call.
With two out and two on (R1, R3) in the bottom of the 8th inning of the Ottawa Champions-Sussex County Miners game, Miners batter Christian Correa took a 1-1 pitch from Champions pitcher Tyler Knigge for a called second ball, resulting in argument and ejection as Miners Manager and 3B Coach Jones contended that Champions catcher Tyler Nordgren had interfered and/or that Knigge had balked.

Replays indicate that while Knigge legally completed his delivery through release from the pitcher's plate, catcher Nordgren stepped in front of home plate without possession of the ball, and caught the pitch entirely on the infield side of the front edge of home plate; this is catcher's interference, the call was incorrect. At the time of the ejection, the Miners were leading, 11-10. The Miners ultimately won the contest, 12-11.

Related Yet Different: Earlier this season (May 6, 2018), Blue Jays pitcher Marco Estrada delivered a 0-2 pitch to Rays batter CJ Cron as baserunner R3 Mallex Smith attempted to steal home. Replays indicate that Blue Jays catcher jumped the delivery and caught Estrada's pitch before it travelled through the strike zone, and, in doing so, interfered with Cron's opportunity to receive Estrada's pitch. Although this should have resulted in a balk and catcher's interference ruling pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 6.01(g), it was incorrectly ruled a legal pitch (a called first ball, even though the pitch was located in the strike zone [not legally, just positionally]), and an inning-ending caught stealing.
Related Post: Case Play 2018-3 - No Strike, No Balk, No Steal [Solved] (5/10/18).

As stated above, a catcher may not jump in front of home plate during a pitch without possession of the ball: this is catcher's interference and, if a runner on third is attempting to advance, a balk. Corresponding OBR 6.01(g) states:
If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead.
If, as in the Thurmond/Jones ejection CanAm play, the runner from third did not try to score (and the defense merely thought [incorrectly] that the runner was trying to steal), this is catcher's interference, but not a 6.01(g) balk since the rule's chief criterion ("trying to score") was not satisfied.

The relevant rule for catcher's interference is OBR 5.05(b)(3):
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—The catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play...
CI occurs when a fielder "hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch" (Definitions/Interference), while a pitch is "delivered to the batter by the pitcher." If the catcher interrupts completion of a pitch by preventing the ball from getting to the batter, it is catcher's interference because the batter has been deprived of his free choice.

Wrap: Ottawa Champions vs. Sussex County Miners (CanAm League), 5/27/18 | Video as follows: