Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapopez
In my list of balks, the following two are consecutive:
a) Pitches from the windup position without maintaining contact with the rubber.
b) Pitches from the set position with his pivot foot outside the end of the rubber.
5a. Was it deliberate that these were presented consecutively? What I mean is, was the author purposely distinguishing the windup and set? This bothers me because (a) should apply to both the windup and the set.
5b. Regarding (b), is it practical to be very strict on this, especially in light of the way Evans presents this in his video where he said it is acceptable for the pitcher to at least have half of his foot adjacent to the rubber?
|
Lapopez,
I'm not clear exactly what you are asking, nor what your "source" is (in re: ...was the
author distinguishing...).
So, I'll just share some thoughts I hope you find relevant.
In regard to your 5a, I would agree that the requirement is the same whether pitching from windup or set. The purpose of the rule is to constrain the distance and, to a lesser degree, angle from which the pitcher delivers.
Note that, despite the wording of the rule, ALL pitchers lose contact with the rubber before the ball leaves their hand on EVERY pitch.
Quote:
|
An ILLEGAL PITCH is (1) a pitch delivered to the batter when the pitcher does not have his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate; ...
|
Sometimes, the "hole" in front of the rubber makes it problematic for the pitcher to maintain contact. I'll make appropriate "allowance" for that.
In regard to 5b, I follow the Evans guidleines, again making appropriate allowance for the condition of the rubber/mound. And, I believe the constraint is the same, whether the pitcher is pitching from windup or set.
I can't see any significance to the "pairing" or sequence of the two proscriptions.
JM