When was the last time you called an IP on the hips not being in line? Or for that matter even took it into consideration?
Quote:
|
Personally, I'm OK with this. The rationale was that (1) it's hard for umpires to see if the stride foot is "toed up" to the plate,
|
Really? That's pretty damn weak.
Quote:
|
and; (2) the change will "provide pitchers with greater balance and take into account their variances in sizes and strengths without creating any type of unfair advantage" which is very similar to the NFHS rationale.
|
Maybe there should be height and weight restrictions also to make sure there are no "unfair" advantages
Quote:
|
Now I put on my "conspiracy theorist" hat: Is this a change made to benefit USA NCAA pitching in preparation for Olympics 2020? The new pitching rule has a lot in common with the international rule, and I sure didn't see this rule change listed on the postseason rules survey. Maybe I missed it.
|
You believe this was a problem in the past? IMO, the present rule is beneficial as it demands more physical command of one's body. I have often noticed that in the HS game where the pitchers who played for under a rule set that requires both feet to be in contact with the PP (at least in my area) tended to have a much higher level of skills and mechanics then a pitcher who didn't. But this is just my perception, your's may vary.
My theory would be this is a coach-led effort to reduce restrictions on their pitchers.
I'm also curious as to whether the restriction of a second placement of the non-pivot foot will actually be enforced. My guess will be that umpires will be directed to not get picky with that restriction if that wording isn't changed. Anyone want to bet the discussion will come around concerning the definition of an "initial set of the non-pivot foot" ?
Well, you asked for my thoughts
