HPU too stunned to call "That's an illegal pitch"?

[dumbdumb]

some of this out of the ordinary motion stuff started back in the day with Juan Marichal and Luis Tiant and maybe way on back too. believe it was Tiant that use to wiggle his hands coming down into the set, but they said since he continued coming down the whole time till he got to his belt, the wiggle was ok. rulings on sets, putting the hand in the glove (how/when) from the windup have been going on for quit a while and the rulings on them also.

[JonnyCat]

I'm not disagreeing with anyone. I don't care for those gyrations, either.

But what specific rule support would you use to call this an illegal pitch in OBR?

[Richvee]

11 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Ok, the people that wrote the rule don’t know how to interpret it

Actually, on second pass reading all 3 codes, OBR doesn't list penalties after the descriptions of windup like NCAA and FED do, leading me to believe in OBR, we have a "don't do that" 

a "Japanese stop" in the windup in a FED game? I'm not allowing it. 

 

[Velho]

3 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

But what specific rule support would you use to call this an illegal pitch in OBR?

Contrary to the practice of a "quick return" being one where F1 steps on rubber and throws in a continuous motion OBR has this in Definitions: "A QUICK RETURN pitch is one made with obvious intent to catch a batter off balance. It is an illegal pitch." Further, the MiLB Manual states "a deliberate effort to catch a batter off guard” is an illegal pitch. 

I'm unable to find rules to support an umpire telling a player to "don't do that" in this case (damn, that was snippy of me, 😁).

How does one respond when the reply to that admonishment from a MLB player is "Or else what? You going to eject me?"

 

[JonnyCat]

5 hours ago, Velho said:

Contrary to the practice of a "quick return" being one where F1 steps on rubber and throws in a continuous motion OBR has this in Definitions: "A QUICK RETURN pitch is one made with obvious intent to catch a batter off balance. It is an illegal pitch." Further, the MiLB Manual states "a deliberate effort to catch a batter off guard” is an illegal pitch. 

Are you saying it is a quick pitch, and therefore an illegal pitch?

I don't have it as a quick pitch. The pitcher started his pitching motion, the batter was set, how can this fall under the definition of a quick pitch?

[JonnyCat]

6 hours ago, Richvee said:

leading me to believe in OBR, we have a "don't do that" 

So if an umpire does say to the pitcher, "don't do that", and he asks why not, how are we to respond?

A. "Because I said so and don't like it?" Sounds like MSU rules there.

B. "Because it runs contrary to the wind up rules that require to deliver a pitch without interruption or alteration? 

Not sure I agree with that either. Honestly, I never knew what "without interruption or alteration" really means.

What exactly is that?

Interruption? Is that like starting then stopping, and then continuing with the windup? Is there any penalty for that with no runners on?

Alteration during a windup? What the hell does that even mean? Can someone give me an example? I really don't know.

[Jimurray]

6 hours ago, Velho said:

Contrary to the practice of a "quick return" being one where F1 steps on rubber and throws in a continuous motion yHow does one respond when the reply to that admonishment from a MLB player is "Or else what? You going to eject me?"

 

You tell him what he is violating in the rule. Jeff Nelson told a pitcher he needed one arm at his side. The pitcher gave him some backtalk and Nelson ejected him. The uninformed thought Nelson was prevent umpiring to avoid a balk. There is no balk for that. It’s a do not do that and if they don’t comply it’s an ejection. 

[Richvee]

59 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

So if an umpire does say to the pitcher, "don't do that", and he asks why not, how are we to respond?

A. "Because I said so and don't like it?" Sounds like MSU rules there.

B. "Because it runs contrary to the wind up rules that require to deliver a pitch without interruption or alteration? 

Not sure I agree with that either. Honestly, I never knew what "without interruption or alteration" really means.

What exactly is that?

Interruption? Is that like starting then stopping, and then continuing with the windup? Is there any penalty for that with no runners on?

Alteration during a windup? What the hell does that even mean? Can someone give me an example? I really don't know.

The answer is B 

An alteration?  How about pulling a hand out of the glove and pretending to pitch and the putting it back on and getting the ball and then throwing. That looks like an altered motion to me. 
 

interruption? I’d say starting the free leg up as to pitch, then bringing it back down and wrapping it around your pivot leg, trying to stand there without losing you’re balance, the bring the leg back up would be a pretty obvious example of an interruption of the pitching motion. 
 

doesn’t seem real difficult. 🤷‍♂️

[Velho]

3 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

I don't have it as a quick pitch. The pitcher started his pitching motion, the batter was set, how can this fall under the definition of a quick pitch?

Was it "made with obvious intent to catch a batter off balance"? If you say no, what if you reasonably synonym "off balance" with "confused"?

[Yes, I know I'm Quixoting this one but OBR is (should) be like legal language. If something is explicitly defined then layman definitions no longer apply. The miming action is obvious and intentional to confuse the batter.

If that pitch (it was 0-2) was a K instead of a foul ball we can fully expect that there would have been an issue. The more fired up I get about it, I think it's like a prior ump not ejecting that rat coach, leaving to us to deal with in the future. These are umps at the very top of the game. They are making it harder on us when they don't deal with this b.s. because we then have to when it's mimiced in our games.

If it's not illegal under existing rules, it should be. Heck [deleted rant that this is a sign of MLBs and Corporate America's moral decay].

💨🤺/end]

[JonnyCat]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

The answer is B 

An alteration?  How about pulling a hand out of the glove and pretending to pitch and the putting it back on and getting the ball and then throwing. That looks like an altered motion to me. 
 

interruption? I’d say starting the free leg up as to pitch, then bringing it back down and wrapping it around your pivot leg, trying to stand there without losing you’re balance, the bring the leg back up would be a pretty obvious example of an interruption of the pitching motion. 
 

doesn’t seem real difficult. 🤷‍♂️

But is any of that illegal with no runners on?

Pitchers use all sorts of gyrations in their delivery with no runners on, and there are no violations. Alterations and interruptions are subjective without clear citations to spell out the exact violations.

Could your first example be an interruption, too? What about the second example, an alteration?

I'm just not seeing clear rule book support to call a violation. Unless MLB issues a clear rule interpretation, I'm not sure this is a violation.

I'm fully aware I could be wrong, but I'm just trying to look for rule support to call something here.

I do not condone these types of actions, but I prefer to have a clear understanding and rule support when calling something like that.

Not arguing with anyone over what to call, just trying to rectify it in my mind.

[Jimurray]

9 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

But is any of that illegal with no runners on?

Pitchers use all sorts of gyrations in their delivery with no runners on, and there are no violations. Alterations and interruptions are subjective without clear citations to spell out the exact violations.

 

I'm just not seeing clear rule book support to call a violation. Unless MLB issues a clear rule interpretation, I'm not sure this is a violation.

 

Why do you want MLB, the people who wrote the rule and allow pitchers to pitch in certain ways, to give you an interp? You are already getting interps from people who read the rules. Shouldn't those who read the rules have better interps than those who wrote the rules?

[JonnyCat]

48 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Why do you want MLB, the people who wrote the rule and allow pitchers to pitch in certain ways, to give you an interp? You are already getting interps from people who read the rules. Shouldn't those who read the rules have better interps than those who wrote the rules?

I just want an official interp, from whomever that is, Wendelstedt would be fine with me. I read the rules too, doesn't automatically make me an expert in OBR interpretations.

Are you specifically saying it's a violation of 5.07(a)(1)?

I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that Cortes is violating something. Again, I could be wrong, but all I'm hearing is opinions with no definitive authoritative interpretation.

I could agree with it being a "don't do that", although I'm not 100% convinced yet.

What I don't agree with is some saying it's an illegal pitch. If it was an illegal pitch under 6.02(b), then the penalty must be a ball to the batter.

So far, no one has convinced me that it is in fact an illegal pitch.

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

I just want an official interp, from whomever that is, Wendelstedt would be fine with me. I read the rules too, doesn't automatically make me an expert in OBR interpretations.

Are you specifically saying it's a violation of 5.07(a)(1)?

I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that Cortes is violating something. Again, I could be wrong, but all I'm hearing is opinions with no definitive authoritative interpretation.

I could agree with it being a "don't do that", although I'm not 100% convinced yet.

What I don't agree with is some saying it's an illegal pitch. If it was an illegal pitch under 6.02(b), then the penalty must be a ball to the batter.

So far, no one has convinced me that it is in fact an illegal pitch.

You have an unofficial interp. Cortez and others are not being told to not do that. 

[Thunderheads]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

The answer is B 

An alteration?  How about pulling a hand out of the glove and pretending to pitch and the putting it back on and getting the ball and then throwing. That looks like an altered motion to me. 
 

interruption? I’d say starting the free leg up as to pitch, then bringing it back down and wrapping it around your pivot leg, trying to stand there without losing you’re balance, the bring the leg back up would be a pretty obvious example of an interruption of the pitching motion. 
 

doesn’t seem real difficult. 🤷‍♂️

Rich, I do agree here, but playing devil's advocate ....

alteration, maybe, but ...all this mumbo jumbo is happening during his 'move' to the plate.  You'll see a lot of pitchers in their motion pop their glove with the ball in their hand (quite different, but similar?)

Interruption, maybe, yes, but .... is Clayton Kershaw guilty, too?

Again, just thinking out loud.   Again, ... B would probably be the most logical, but ....

[JonnyCat]

4 hours ago, Jimurray said:

You have an unofficial interp. Cortez and others are not being told to not do that. 

I haven't seen that anywhere. Do you have a cite or link for that?

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but did MLB publish something about that? I'd like to reference it.

[Jimurray]

20 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

I haven't seen that anywhere. Do you have a cite or link for that?

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but did MLB publish something about that? I'd like to reference it.

That’s what I mean by unofficial. No action taken. As opposed to action taken, for example, with the second step from the rubber. 

[Velho]

16 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

That’s what I mean by unofficial. No action taken. As opposed to action taken, for example, with the second step from the rubber. 

"What you permit you promote"

"What you don't condemn you condone"

[Richvee]

6 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

Rich, I do agree here, but playing devil's advocate ....

alteration, maybe, but ...all this mumbo jumbo is happening during his 'move' to the plate.  You'll see a lot of pitchers in their motion pop their glove with the ball in their hand (quite different, but similar?)

Interruption, maybe, yes, but .... is Clayton Kershaw guilty, too?

Again, just thinking out loud.   Again, ... B would probably be the most logical, but ....

OBR lists no penalty even if we think it’s violating windup regulations. That’s why I think it’s a “don’t do that” if you subscribe to the thought that there is hesitation or alteration here. (Which at this point is opinion) 
 

NACAA has shown us video footage telling us it’s an illegal pitch.  And we all know too well FED doesn’t want this stuff. 

I think the bottom line is we differentiate the codes here.  Because I for one don’t want to hear “but Nestor does it even more” when I call an illegal pitch in HS or college. 

[Jimurray]

On 4/17/2024 at 10:07 AM, Jimurray said:

That’s what I mean by unofficial. No action taken. As opposed to action taken, for example, with the second step from the rubber. 

We now have an official interp: Yankees starter Nestor Cortes’ funky pump-fake is illegal pitch: MLB (msn.com)

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

We now have an official interp: Yankees starter Nestor Cortes’ funky pump-fake is illegal pitch: MLB (msn.com)

Thank @Jimurray

Love how the articles includes MLB promoting the (now) illegal move* on their twitter. 

I can't decide if I'm cranky and take this stuff too seriously or MLB as an organization doesn't take it seriously enough.

 

* Illegal "because I said so" apparently?

 

[dumbdumb]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Thank @Jimurray

Love how the articles includes MLB promoting the (now) illegal move* on their twitter. 

I can't decide if I'm cranky and take this stuff too seriously or MLB as an organization doesn't take it seriously enough.

 

* Illegal "because I said so" apparently?

 

Sounds like mlb is using 8.01c with a bit of 8.01b thrown in.

 

[Velho]

40 minutes ago, dumbdumb said:

Sounds like mlb is using 8.01c with a bit of 8.01b thrown in.

Which strikes me as the legal equivalent of "because we said so" 😉