The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Pitching (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/20576-pitching.html)

Gozer Fri May 27, 2005 01:51am

Ok. OBR. Where can the pitchers feet be in relation to the pitching plate. Basically what I am looking for is if the pitcher's toes can stick off the edge of the plate towards first or third base while being in contact with the plate.

Thanks for the help,

Kenny

GarthB Fri May 27, 2005 01:59am

Quote:

Originally posted by Gozer
Ok. OBR. Where can the pitchers feet be in relation to the pitching plate. Basically what I am looking for is if the pitcher's toes can stick off the edge of the plate towards first or third base while being in contact with the plate.

Thanks for the help,

Kenny

Just curious...how did this even come up?

Gozer Fri May 27, 2005 02:07am

Question from a coach. I think it stems from the vegueness of the rule, and the more I think about it the more I lean towrds NFHS rules in the fact that just being in contact and in front of the plate is good.

The rule reads "The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his entire pivot foot on, or in front of and touching and not off the end of the pitcher's plate, and the other foot free." I am wondering the definiton of "end" is that the end of the plate closest to first and third or closest to second. Just somewhat puzzled.

Kenny

UmpJM Fri May 27, 2005 02:10am

Gozer,

Well I'm not so sure about the <b>toes</b>, but apparently his <b>heel</b> can stick out quite a bit off the rubber. Wouldn't you agree?

<img src="http://thediamondangle.com/archive/july03/oakland/75b_big.jpg">

In a more serious vein, I'm guessing your question is in reference to a pitcher who is pitching from a "Set" position and what the 8.01(b) language:

"<i>(b) The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands facing the batter with his entire pivot foot on, or in front of, and in contact with, <b>and not off the end of</b> the pitcher's plate,...</i>

<b>really</b> means.

As I understand it, at all levels below MLB, the pitcher is required to have at least <b>half</b> of his pivot foot adjacent to the rubber. His toes or heel may extend beyond the rubber, but he's required to have at least half of his foot "in contact". I know that's <b>not</b> what the rule says, but I believe that's how it's done.

Unless you pitch for the A's of course. Then you're given a little more latitude.

JM

Gozer Fri May 27, 2005 02:17am

Thanks for the help. I had a feeling that it wasnt that major of a deal as long as they have contact. I wont let it be taken to extremes but noteworthy to know the rule.

Thanks again,

Kenny

UmpJM Fri May 27, 2005 02:29am

Gozer,

You're quite welcome. As I understand it, the intent behind the rule language is to limit the pitcher's advantage in delivering a pitch to a batter by confining both the minimum distance and the extremity of the <b>angle</b> from which he initiates his delivery of the pitch.

If it were to come up during a game, those would be the elements I would consider in determining my judgement of the legality of the pitcher's stance.

JM

chris s Fri May 27, 2005 03:38am

Quote:

Originally posted by CoachJM
Gozer,

Well I'm not so sure about the <b>toes</b>, but apparently his <b>heel</b> can stick out quite a bit off the rubber. Wouldn't you agree?

<img src="http://thediamondangle.com/archive/july03/oakland/75b_big.jpg">

In a more serious vein, I'm guessing your question is in reference to a pitcher who is pitching from a "Set" position and what the 8.01(b) language:

"<i>(b) The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands facing the batter with his entire pivot foot on, or in front of, and in contact with, <b>and not off the end of</b> the pitcher's plate,...</i>

<b>really</b> means.

As I understand it, at all levels below MLB, the pitcher is required to have at least <b>half</b> of his pivot foot adjacent to the rubber. His toes or heel may extend beyond the rubber, but he's required to have at least half of his foot "in contact". I know that's <b>not</b> what the rule says, but I believe that's how it's done.

Unless you pitch for the A's of course. Then you're given a little more latitude.

JM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

This came up a few years ago. Look how nice that mound is, notice the 6 inch deep hole inherant to a LOT of youth fields is missing

DG Fri May 27, 2005 10:16am

In "51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game" Carl calls this one a highly technical balk that is best to "ignore it until someone calls it to your attention (They never will)." Technically, any part of the foot can not hang off. This A's pitcher is obviously not gaining an advantage on a pickoff to 1B by hanging off the other side of the rubber.

UmpJM Fri May 27, 2005 10:45am

DG,

My understanding is that the intent of this language in the rule is to limit the pitcher's advantage over the <b>batter</b> rather than to limit his advantage in "holding runners".

It has been suggested to me that under OBR, this is <b>never</b> properly balked (FED could differ on this point, I'm not sure) but is treated as a "don't do that" should anyone be "picky" enough to insist on strict compliance during a game.

JM

DG Fri May 27, 2005 12:36pm

Quote:

Originally posted by CoachJM
DG,

My understanding is that the intent of this language in the rule is to limit the pitcher's advantage over the <b>batter</b> rather than to limit his advantage in "holding runners".

It has been suggested to me that under OBR, this is <b>never</b> properly balked (FED could differ on this point, I'm not sure) but is treated as a "don't do that" should anyone be "picky" enough to insist on strict compliance during a game.

JM

What would the advantage be over a batter for having his heel or toe off the edge of the rubber?

UmpJM Fri May 27, 2005 12:44pm

DG,

It would enable the pitcher to increase the "severity of the angle" from which he released the pitch. Imagine a RHP delivering to a RH batter. By just having the tip of his heel in contact, the pitcher could conceivably increase the illusion (from the batter's perspective) that a pitch that was actually going to end up in the strike zone was going to hit the batter. Not sure if I'm being clear.

It also constrains the "minimum distance" from which the pitcher must initiate his delivery (whether in strict compliance with the "whole foot" language or not).

JM


mcrowder Fri May 27, 2005 12:51pm

Hmmm. COS (1'/60'6") = less than half of a degree. This helps the pitcher HOW?!?!?

DG Fri May 27, 2005 01:03pm

Quote:

Originally posted by CoachJM
DG,

It would enable the pitcher to increase the "severity of the angle" from which he released the pitch. Imagine a RHP delivering to a RH batter. By just having the tip of his heel in contact, the pitcher could conceivably increase the illusion (from the batter's perspective) that a pitch that was actually going to end up in the strike zone was going to hit the batter. Not sure if I'm being clear.

It also constrains the "minimum distance" from which the pitcher must initiate his delivery (whether in strict compliance with the "whole foot" language or not).

JM


Interesting angle theory, but I think the reason for the rule is so the pitcher can't get closer to a runner on base.

mbyron Fri May 27, 2005 06:23pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder
Hmmm. COS (1'/60'6") = less than half of a degree. This helps the pitcher HOW?!?!?
Hey, that's good. I have to remember to use trigonometry with the complaining coaches next time!

The rule requires the pitcher's foot to be completely within the length of the rubber.

But it's one of those rules that receives by tradition lax enforcement: ignore it until someone complains, then enforce it equally for both sides for the remainder of the game.

Saltydog Fri May 27, 2005 11:50pm


"Originally posted by mcrowder
Hmmm. COS (1'/60'6") = less than half of a degree. This helps the pitcher HOW?!?!?"

Actually you'd want to use the arccos to determine the angle, or more correctly, in this case the arctan since you're using opposite and adjacent sides vice adjacent and hypotenuse. In which case the angle is ~.9 degrees... really ~1.9 since the pitcher could throw from either extreme of the rubber. :-)

Math aside, I think CoachJM's comment "the pitcher could conceivably increase the illusion (from the batter's perspective) that a pitch that was actually going to end up in the strike zone was going to hit the batter." is accurate, and the operative word is illusion. My son as a 10y/o used to do this. When I asked him what the heck he was doing over there (he'd shift for the better batters (anything for an edge)) he told me 'It freaks them out Dad... esp if I deliver side arm"! He went on to tell me how anyone can hit one right down the pipe and that it doesn't take much angle to mess a batter up. (He'd go all the way to the first base side against LH batters. Well, until I 'read the book'. Face it, if you have a Dad that worries about the diff between arctan and cos what chance do you have without your 'entire pivot foot... in front of the rubber;-))

Ya have to admit, it would be nice to know 'no kidding' why the rule is written that way wouldn't it? Be worth at least one cold drink bet when you're sitting there watching a game with friends!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1