[scrounge]

Originally Posted by bluehair

1. Then you agree that F1 can have his entire pivot foot in contact with the rubber (initial set position) in a variation of this hybrid stance, thanks.
2. If you want to use the word "entire" literally, it can never be achieved, unless the pitching plate is made of jello. But now I nit pick, lets get back to your nit pick.
3. If F1 intends to be in the set position (pivot foot on top of the rubber). Are you going to balk him because his big toe was on the dirt in front of the rubber? Or the back of his foot wasn't in contact? If yes, I think that's OOO. Just like this hybrid initial position. I'll no longer argue about this nit-picking.

Lost in all this nit picking over the partially literal definition of the word "entire", is my opinion why the Fed made this a POE. In Fed (unlike OBR) F1 can not throw to a base from the initial wind-up position without disengaging first, but can from the initial set position. If F1 muddies up the initial position by having his pivot foot entirely in contact and free foot entirely in front of the rubber (a legal initial set position), how can you balk him for throwing to 3B without disengaging? If an umpire continues to allow F1 to wind-up from this hybrid, he is opening up the possiblility (though I've never seen/heard of it done) that F1 breaks off a throw to 3B without disengaging and having the DHC say this isn't a balk because F1 was in a legal set position.

If the entire pivot is in contact as you state in 1] then it was never a hybrid to begin with. The rest of that is absurd to the point of requiring no further reply. My congratulations on your internet message board debate win - I hear it's a wonderful trophy.