|
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 
|
|
Fri May 27, 2005, 01:59am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
GB
|
|
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
|
|
Fri May 27, 2005, 02:10am
|
|||
|
|||
Gozer,
Well I'm not so sure about the toes, but apparently his heel can stick out quite a bit off the rubber. Wouldn't you agree?  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: "(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, and not off the end of the pitcher's plate,... really means. As I understand it, at all levels below MLB, the pitcher is required to have at least half 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 not 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
|
|
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 angle 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
|
|
Fri May 27, 2005, 03:38am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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 batter rather than to limit his advantage in "holding runners". It has been suggested to me that under OBR, this is never 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
|
|
Fri May 27, 2005, 12:36pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
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
|
|
Fri May 27, 2005, 01:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Fri May 27, 2005, 06:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
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!
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
