You make the call......

[Bretman]

I posted on ask the experts .com and this is the reply I got...

Be careful with some of the answers you get on that site. I check in there every once in awhile and some of the answers given by the "experts" are way off. I will say that Mark Ambrose, the guy that answered your question, participates in some other umpire discussion boards and does seem to know his stuff. I would agree with the answer he gave you.

Some of the other people that answer questions on that site are notorious for giving wrong answers and bad information. If you ever visit their baseball board, some of the answers are so bad that it seems like they're just pulling them randomly out of a hat.

CoachEd: It seems obvious that you had the misfortune of having an ill-trained or inexperienced umpire at your game. That he insisted on calling this infraction a "balk" would be the first clue. The second would be that he was engaging "parents behind the backstop" in his explanation. We deal with coaches and may owe one of them an explanation on a call. Spectators are just that- they are not game participants, we owe them no explanations and should never actively be engaged with them.

It is also unfortunate that his own partner would openly criticize him during the game. No matter how bad your partner is, this is totally unacceptable behavior from an umpire. If the plate umpire had a rule wrong, or maybe missed something that was obvious, his partner should huddle up with him in private and tell him what he saw or what rule he thinks is being misinterpreted. Or, if he doesn't want to do that, then he should keep his mouth shut.

If an umpire is having a problem with controlling the game, the last thing that should happen is for his partner to publically throw him under the bus! Do that, and you can almost guarantee that what little control he may have had is out the window and things are going to go downhill from there!

[MTR]

When the batter steps out and the pitcher stops pitching you have an infraction on both the batter and pitcher and the proper call is to call time, let em know whats up, and reset them.

ie.. yes its a no pitch

What is the infraction on the batter? There is no rule forcing a batter to remain in the batter's box during a pitch.

[wadeintothem]

What is the infraction on the batter? There is no rule forcing a batter to remain in the batter's box during a pitch.

I wasnt aware that I mentioned that there was a rule forcing a batter to remain in the batters box .
The infraction in ASA is violation of 6-10-E.

[Bretman]

Good point. I guess that we would issue a warning only if we judged it be an act of "purposely trying to make the pitcher commit an illegal pitch" (as described in ASA rule 6-10-E or NFHS rule 7-3-1(2)). And then we issue a team warning, not a warning to the batter.

It looks like there are also some differences in the rule and interpretation for ASA vs. NFHS on this.

For ASA, if the batter steps out with one foot she hasn't done anything wrong. It isn't until she steps out with both feet and delays play that she has illegally left the box. Their rule says that if the batter steps out without time being granted, all play continues and the pitch, if delivered, is called a ball or strike depending on its relation to the strike zone.

The NFHS rule just says the batter "steps out" and they do not have the same "one foot in the box" requirement. The NFHS rule specifically says that if the pitcher stops her motion due to the batter stepping out, it is not an illegal pitch. The umpire is to call time and "no pitch".

Is there a fundamental difference in the rulings here between ASA and NFHS? If in an ASA game the pitcher stops her delivery because the batter stepped out with one foot, but is was not a deliberate act to cause an illegal pitch, is that an illegal pitch?

[wadeintothem]

Actually its easier than that in ASA - and you dont have to think so much

*hint
This exact scenario is in the ASA case book

[Bretman]

*hint This exact scenario is in the ASA case book

Great. When they decide to give us one of those with our registration, then I'll have one of those!

[MTR]

Actually its easier than that in ASA - and you dont have to think so much

*hint
This exact scenario is in the ASA case book

Here's the play from 2009 Case Book:

PLAY 6.10-2
F1 is in the windup when B1, in an attempt to have F1 commit an illegal pitch, raises their hand as if to request ‘‘time’’ and F1 stops in the middle of the windup. What is the ruling?
RULING: A “no pitch” shall be declared. (6-10E)

The difference is that the case play specifically noted B1's action was an attempt to draw an IP. The OP makes no such assertion.

Rule 6.10.E specifically requires the "obvious purpose of trying to make the pitcher commit an illegal pitch."

The only thing that seemed obvious is that the umpire didn't really know what to do.

In the past (a few years back), umpires were told that lack of an indicator giving credance to the possibility of intent, the result of the action on the field and then a warning to the offense should it occur again. The pitcher should NEVER hold up unless the catcher or umpire signals them to stop.

I have no problem with the umpire ruling either way as everything in the rule is based on the umpire's judgment/belief of the action which just occurred. In the younger divisions, yeah a no pitch is probably the way to go. For the older players who should know better, IP and warning unless the umpire suspects intent.

[wadeintothem]

Actually its easier than that in ASA - and you dont have to think so much

*hint
This exact scenario is in the ASA case book

Here's the play from 2009 Case Book:

PLAY 6.10-2
F1 is in the windup when B1, in an attempt to have F1 commit an illegal pitch, raises their hand as if to request ‘‘time’’ and F1 stops in the middle of the windup. What is the ruling?
RULING: A “no pitch” shall be declared. (6-10E)

The difference is that the case play specifically noted B1's action was an attempt to draw an IP. The OP makes no such assertion.

Rule 6.10.E specifically requires the "obvious purpose of trying to make the pitcher commit an illegal pitch."

The only thing that seemed obvious is that the umpire didn't really know what to do.

In the past (a few years back), umpires were told that lack of an indicator giving credance to the possibility of intent, the result of the action on the field and then a warning to the offense should it occur again. The pitcher should NEVER hold up unless the catcher or umpire signals them to stop.

I have no problem with the umpire ruling either way as everything in the rule is based on the umpire's judgment/belief of the action which just occurred. In the younger divisions, yeah a no pitch is probably the way to go. For the older players who should know better, IP and warning unless the umpire suspects intent.

Well put and I agree with it 100%

I especially agree about the pitcher still delivering the ball.

I've tried to make that point a few times but it seems the coaches are content with just blaming the umpire instead of understanding that it is their job to teach the pitcher to deliver the ball.

Edit to add:

I'm not sure I would change my ruling based on age though. Maybe level of play/age could be an indicator of certain motives. If the batter steps out and the pitcher steps out baring unusual circumstance - you have an infraction by both (This term I didnt make up so I think the "few years back" teaching is where I heard that) and it should be a no pitch. Thats the case book, thats the teaching and thats the proper ruling.

The pitcher in question likely did commit an illegal pitch, and in this case, a game costing IP; however, with the infraction by the batter (taking the OP at face value) the ruling could have been No pitch.

As I said earlier.. if the ump doesnt see the batter step out..well thats why this coach should be teaching sound pitching doctrine.

[wadeintothem]

I may have used the wrong word - I said "motive"

I think accoutability due to a higher level and expectation may be a better way to put how I see it.

[coachEd]

Thanks to all the Blues for your insight. The BLUE rocks !!

This particular blue just had a bad day at the office. The "balk" call was merely the last in a series of missteps by this blue. In the immediatly preceding game, it ended tied after regulation, so per ASA rules, go to ITB, right? Well, one of the coaches (who obviously didnt know the rules either), tried to convince the blue that it was not ITB, but rather, straight extra innings. The blue agreed, if you can believe that ! But the other coach (who knows the rules) straightened out the blue on that one. Then, the coach that doesnt know the rules, made an offensive substitution without reporting her to the blue. The girl gets a hit, but, after the defending coach raised the illegal sub violation, the blue called her out (well, we have to give him credit for getting that one right!), but he then proceeds to disqualify (i.e., eject) the girl from the game for the illegal sub. RULE CHANGE 101 FOR 2009: No more disqualification of the player for the illegal sub. So, he got that one wrong, and so did his partner who didnt correct him, and the coach who didnt know the rules lost a player unnecessarily.

In the game in question, last inning of regulation, batter squares around to bunt and gets hit in the foot with the pitch. He awards her first base, then after a couple minutes of rationalizing it to himself outloud, he calls her back saying she didnt pull the bat back. Here is where he gets into a discussion with the parents about it, if you can believe that. After a minute or so of that nonsense, the offensive coach calls him out to the middle of the infield telling him to get away from the parents and come talk to him, and pulls the base ump in too, along with the defending coach to talk about it. Finally, a decision is made and both coaches live with, like it or not. But this whole scene was just a complete loss of control by the blue. The girl gets back in the box instead of being awarded first, and wouldnt you know it, the very next pitch, same darn thing happens: batter squares around to bunt, gets hit in the foot with the pitch. But this time, it is more apparent that she pulled the bat back and he awards her first base. But, the blue again first tries to rationalize it to himself outloud and engages parents, etc. trying to rationalize it to them. The odd part through all of this was, the base ump was not really helpful at all to his partner and more or less kept pointing to the plate ump telling him it is his call and that he didnt see either bunt play. The next 1/2 inning comes the "balk" call.

That is one tough day at the office, warranted of a Harps on St. Paddys Day.