Hi all. I'm new here and a first year HS umpire.

Ok. Here's the situation. I was doing a JV game the other day and the pitcher was starting in the set position (not the stretch). From being set he would then lift both of his hands and glove above his head then make his delivery. Is this a balk or is a pitcher not required to come directly to the plate if hes not making or feinting a pickoff move?

Balk
 

Pitcher cannot engage the pitcher's plate with his hands together. In this case, don't penalize, educate.

Have a great year.

I don't see where he said the pitcher engaged the rubber with his hands together. It just says the pitcher started from the set. If that's the case then there's no balk.


Tim.

If the lifting of the hands and the delivery was in a smooth motion, then i'd let it go.

If there was a pause, hesitation, or jerk in the movement, then balk it.

It's real hard to envision what is happening here. There is a set position and a windup position. That's it. One can "go into a stretch" and one can "come set". These can only happen while using the set position.

We could all spit out the pitching rule, but try explaining what happened more clearly and the community will be able to help you better.

D

Bad Mechanics
 

Technically, from the wind-up, one doe not have to wind-up. The pitcher could just deliver the ball. Although I love when they pitch quickly, make sure he doesn't get away with an unfair quick pitch. His motion must be consistent throughout the game.

[Edited by SAump on Feb 18th, 2006 at 08:39 PM]

<i>His motion must be consistent throughout the game.</i>


I was with you up to here - is this a FED thing?

No it doesn't...

FED thing?
 

I was merely pointing out that there is NO ideal pitching delivery in place for the wind-up.

Each young pitcher may have his own quirks in regards to hand and glove location, front shoulder movement or leg movement pause or hesitation or jerk; before he releases a pitch towards the batter.

His mechanics must be consistent throughout the game, or it could, by rule, be a BALK. Some folks thought that Fernando Valenzuela had an unusual delivery. It was consistent and legal throughout the ballgame. There was 1 sidewinding pitcher in MLB last year who released the ball from his ankles. I cannot recall his name at the moment, nor describe his unique delivery towards home plate; but there was nothing wrong with it. Let's hope he doesn't hurt himself too soon.

Mechanics do not have to be consistent throughout the game. Most good pitchers will vary their delivery with runners on base so base stealers don't get a consistent read which will make base stealing easy. As long as the delivery is legal, there is nothing illegal about varying the delivery from pitch to pitch or batter to batter.

Also, a pitcher could throw sidearm one pitch, overhand the next and submarine style for the third. The whole sequence is legal.

D

Re: FED thing?
 

So let's say a pitcher delivers like Valenzuela the whole game, then he pitches one like Randy Johnson.

You're calling a balk for this?

He said "From being set..."

Reading this carefully, we can determine that Reznor is saying that the pitcher was starting with his hands together, and not with his pitching hand by his side. As largeone59 pointed out, this is not legal. He needs to start the set position with his hands apart, bring them together, and come set (stop), prior to delivering a pitch.

I agree that I need more info about exactly what was going on before I give my opinion.

But, beside the point, if any coach that allows a pitcher out of the stretch to go over his head during the delivery needs to be hit upside the head. There might be a world record for stolen bases against this guy.

Follwing along
 

"Bad Mechanics - Technically, from the wind-up, one doe not have to wind-up. The pitcher could just deliver the ball. ... His motion must be consistent throughout the game. ...His mechanics must be consistent throughout the game, or it could, by rule, be a BALK. "

The pitcher from the wind-up CANNOT change his motion/mechanics throughout the game. If he comes set and delivers a pitch, he must continue that motion throughout the game. If he raises his arms above his head and delivers a pitch, he must continue that motion throughout the game. If he alternates between these two legal motions to home plate, by rule, the first one could be called a QUICK PITCH and a BALK/Ball.

Similarly, if Fernando turns his back and looks up during the windup, he could easily get away with a quick pitch by delivering the ball straight to the plate. Yet, he didn't do that. His motion was consistent throughout the entire game. Good pitchers have a consistent motion, quirks and all, to the plate. I have yet to see a MLB pitcher vary his deliveries consistently throughout a ballgame. I never said it couldn't be done, I just imply that it is a RARE combination of events at the MLB level. I suppose anything is possible in the BUSH leagues.

Also, the pitcher's shoulder/feet from the set postion may angle out towards first base (<45o) or angle straight toward home plate throughout the ballgame. The pitcher would be restricted to choose only one. If he alternates between these two legal positions, by rule, the first one is NOW ILLEGAL and should be called a BALK every time afterwards. The runners would advance 1 base.

Re: FED thing?
 

Please tell me where in 8.05 this is mentioned.
I've read it twice, and fail to see any mandate
that the pitcher must do this.
Which "rule" is he violating ?

[Edited by umpduck11 on Feb 19th, 2006 at 10:08 AM]

FED thing?
 

Yes, NFHS Rule 6, Section 1 Pitching, ART 1.

.... He shall not make a quick-return pitch in an attempt to catch the batter off balance.

Yes, NFHS Rule 6, Section 1 Pitching, ART 2.

.... After he starts his movement to pitch, he must continue the motion without interruption or alteration.

DO I continue or can you handle reading the rest?

Re: FED thing?
 

I fail to see the words "same motion" anywhere.
Why don't you continue until you find where I
missed that.

Another NFHS shot in the arm
 

I really don't mind the smears about me above. Some are really clever and I do enjoy sharing a good laugh or two, at my own expense. But I don't need anyone to take everyone of my words out of context for the sake of self-indulgent-gratifying pleasures. Play FAIR.

HERE it is in BLACK and WHITE for ALL to see. I don't think MLB and NCAA rules differ from NFHS on these issues at all. I posted my opinion and I have rules to back it up. In this case, I pointed out the proper rules out of the NFHS rulebook, in particular, as it pertains to the opening thread of discussion.

NFHS Rule 6, Section 2 Infractions by Pitcher, ART 4.d. failing to pitch to the batter in a continuous motion immediately after any movement of any part of his body such as he habitually uses in his delivery;

Re: Another NFHS shot in the arm
 

How has anyone taken your words out of
context? Using the same motion every pitch
is not the same thing (imo) as the above rule
reference. You're confusing the issue with this
rule reference.
Does anyone else here think I'm mistaken ?

He's confused. He must be thinking where the rules says one continuos motion that means he has to use the same motion on every pitch.

Maybe the rule could have been worded better by saying a fluid motion.

Be careful not to disagree with him, Duck. Otherwise you'll be attacking him.

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Feb 19th, 2006 at 11:07 AM]

Need a clue
 

You may have another clue.

Please refer to it as "such as he habitually uses in his delivery;0"

Re: Need a clue
 

So you're telling me that this rule means that
a pitcher MUST use the same motion every pitch?
OMG, please tell me you don't think that......

Re: Need a clue
 

You are dead wrong. If you call this in a game, you will not be backed up by ANY rule, interpretation, or otherwise.


Please quote the whole rule next time:

"It's a balk when:

failing to pitch to the batter in a continuous motion immediately after any movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery"

This means if he doesn't pitch in a fluid motion, it's a balk or if he makes any motion associated with his pitch, and doesn't, it's a balk. It says nothing about changing styles of delivery.

[Edited by largeone59 on Feb 19th, 2006 at 11:55 AM]

Re: FED thing?
 

Changing your motion is NOT a quick return pitch. I don't even see how you can remotely compare the two.

Quote:

Yes, NFHS Rule 6, Section 1 Pitching, ART 2. .... After he starts his movement to pitch, he must continue the motion without interruption or alteration. DO I continue or can you handle reading the rest?

If he uses 1 legal move, then uses 1 completely different LEGAL move, he hasn't violated this rule either. Changing your motion from pitch to pitch is NOT what the rule says. This rule says the movement must be fluid. I don't know where you get these interps...

Can't STAND it?
 

Wake up. Pitchers must follow the rules too.

Read them quickly to follow along with their fluid motion. You will notice that the provisions I outlined on page 1 are CONSISTENT with each of the rules written on page 2. Nor have I played word association games with the intended meaning of the words you clearly don't care to recognize or understand.

IMOHO, I am CORRECT by rule, by rule interpretation, and by experience level. Although I wrote them per NFHS verbage, I did not make them up on my own. I merely copied them from that BOOK. My interpretation should also agree with all other WINDIES, BAMA BOYS, CASEWORKERS and UNION BOSSES here. I know your having difficulty with that. Over time it will pass too;).

Let it go guys. I thought at first that he just might be misunderstanding how to apply the rules of the game. It's become apparent that that's not the case. He's now arguing just to argue.


Tim.

~SIGH~
 

No pitcher at any time needs to use the "same motion" under any rules code.

As an example if this were true a pitcher would not be able to use the "slide step" when he feels a runner may be thinking of stealing a base.

Any one who says a pitcher must use "habitually the same movement" simply does not understand baseball rules.

However, I also think some people believe that a fast ball can "rise" -- I think I will allow people's complete history of posting on this site will establish who understands rules or not.

How sad that some just don't get it.

oh, how true
 

I wish I could read that RISING thread from time to time, but it was mysteriously deleted by who-knows-who.

Anyone care to comment on Follwing Along at the bottom of page 1.
I would certainly like to know if I misinterpreted these facts too.

I disagree. Please provide the rule number you reference when you say "by rule". Neither Fed or OBR has any such restictions that I have read in my rule book. I have been wrong before, but our whole association isnt aware of this "by rule" situation.

Well, yes, you have misrepresentd the facts. Every good pitcher above the age of 13 will vary his delivery to the plate. If they didn't the runner would key off of this and steal bases at will off of his first move. Didn't you ever play the game?

I can see it now. A right handed pitcher from the set with R2 only brings his knee up to a full balance point before delivering the pitch in the first inning.

The third inning comes around and with R1 only he slide steps as he delivers the ball in order to hold or freeze the runner.


Now you're going to call time and balk him for making a legal move because you think he has to use the same exact delivery on every pitch.

Funny stuff.

Tim.

Re: oh, how true
 

You have misintepreted.

From the windup, the pitcher could raise his hands above his head while taking a large step backwards and in a continous motion deliver the pitch. On the next pitch he could raise his hands only chest high while taking a short step backwards and in a continuous motion deliver the pitch. Both are legal and different.

While making a stretch the pitcher could come set with his hands together at his chin and his non-pivot foot 3 feet from his pivot foot. On the next pitch his hands come pass by his chin and come to a stop at his belt with his non-pivot foot 2 feet from his pivot. Both are legal and different.

There is no requirement for consistent delivery throughout the game. There is a requirement that once you start your movement to deliver a pitch you can not stop.

Also, earlier you said "Pitcher cannot engage the pitcher's plate with his hands together." This is also innacurate. If a pitcher steps on the pitching plate with his hands together he must then stop, he can not in a continuous motion deliver a pitch. See case book plays 6.1.2F and 6.1.2G where the pitcher stepped onto the pitcher's plate in windup position with both hands together. In F balk was called because he dropped his pitching hand to his side. In G balk was called because he stepped back with his non-pivot and stopped. In neither was a balk called because he stepped onto the pitcher's plate with his hands already together. See also case book 6.2.1H where a move where the pitcher "intentionally contacts the pitcher's plate with one of the three legal positions, (a) hands together in front of his body" is described as a legal move.

Lastly, if a pitcher in the set comes set with his non-pivot foot on a direct line toward home and on the next pitch he comes set with that same foot 30 degrees (ie <45) toward 1B (from a line toward home) this is not a balk.

So you are 0 for 3 on your interps.

[Edited by DG on Feb 19th, 2006 at 03:16 PM]

It is completely LEGAL to use a different motion from pitch to pitch or batter to batter. You see this all the time, say you have a LH submarine style pitcher, oftentimes in MLB he will use the submarine motion when pitching to a LH batter, but will change to a 3/4 delivery when a RH batter comes up.

Another example is many times a pitcher will "drop down" to change the batter's view of the release. Both of these are perfectly legal examples of changing styles throughout the game. Balking these would be plain ridiculous.

Ok Im good all. Thanks for the help. I spoke to an experienced umpire in my association and he cleared it up for me.

SAump, you're up $hit creek without a paddle here... unless you pull an authoritative interpretation or opinion out of your a$$ somewhere to support your incorrect rulings, then you should really stop defending yourself. you're losing credibility with every additional post you use to defend your position- if you had any credibility to begin with...

Hook Line and Sinker
 

You're getting twisted about my alleged misinterpretation of the rule book. Please step off my neck with your pivot foot first or I call a BALK. Habitual is NOT MY word, its the FED word and I told you were to find it. If you don't understand it and you continue to get a RISE out of it, then you can't imagine how to enfore the BALK/Ball rule. Address my simple explanations and stop twisting my words around. It's plain and simple for all to understand.

DG and D-man misled most of you with their legal delivery is not illegal posts. If you read my posts, I never used the words overhand, 3/4ers, submarine, or slide-step. I never said a pitcher could not change these delivery methods. I used the words consistent with motion and mechanics. I gave two official interpretations that comply with the BALK rules now in place in the NFHS rulebook. I clearly stated what I meant and most of you clearly misinterpreted my simple explanation.

But you want to continue the follwing argument anyway. Stop and READ it. A good pitching coach recognizes good mechanics. While taking the signals, the pitcher on the mound begins to turn his shoulder/arm in complete rotations before releasing the ball in any manner described above. Everyone know that he was only loosening up his shoulder before the real pitch. But he's not allowed to do it while standing on the pitcher's plate. BALK.

Is anybody keeping score in this game?


I'd say it's two outs in the bottom of the ninth with the SAump team being blanked 9-0.


Tim.

Stop and consider
 

Each young pitcher may have his own quirks in regards to hand and glove location, front shoulder movement or leg movement pause or hesitation or jerk; before he releases a pitch towards the batter.

I think DG, that is my original explanation and that you use identical words for those who may have misunderstood my comment above. Now you take that and run with it into any LEGAL delivery as long as it's legal. How polite? I suppose I wouldn't argue with the legality of that ONE.

You also insinuate that a pitcher who 1) raises his hand over his head on each and every windup, may now alter his motion and 2) come set and deliver a quick pitch ( by not raising his hands over his head as usual) on a 3-2 count. Balk! I saw your delivery, 3) the same step backward and raising the glove up to the chest/face. A simple adoption of option 3 to argue against option 1 because option 2 is now ILLEGAL. I guess that works for you behind the barn.

You also insinuate that a pitcher who comes set facing the batter with a runner on first on each set position, may then alter his position and come set from a 40 degree foot/shoulder at anytime during the course of a ball game. Balk! I guess YOU need PRO instruction. If a pitcher begins in a position and come sets from a 40 degree foot/shoulder angle, it is perfectly legal. He may continue to LEGALLY pitch from that stance throughout the course of the ballgame. However, if he does it only once and only to get an advantage on the RUNNER, BALK IT while its HOT!

Please take responsibility for misleading any of our younger umpires who may not have your experience. Please explain the rules as written and stop twisting the original lines. A pitcher cannot step onto the rubber with both of his hands together and pitch. I know, I know. You stated that as long as he pauses long enough, it is perfectly legal. But again Doubleday, YOU ARE WRONG. A pitcher may pitch from the windup or set position. The play you describe sounds like it is perfectly LEGAL from the windup or set position. However, from either, he must properly dismount and remount. Something you probably know all about and are really good at.

Well,
 

First, I find it interesting when we have a thread that is only kept alive by ONE poster who thinks, honestly, that he is correct.

So let me be as clear as I possibly can:

It is totally legal for a pitcher:

1) To change anything about his wind-up at any time. Let's say that a pitcher has been using the 1930's style "double pump" wind up for 6 1/3 innings . . . in the seventh inning with 3 balls and 2 strikes ona hitter the pitcher changes to a "Don Larsen" type no wind-up delievery. This is totally legal as long as he was in contact with the pitcher's plate. There are no rules that say he needs to use the same wind-up during a game.

2) Can change anything he wants when pitching from the set position as long as he clearly stops before the delivery. He can set up with an open stance on one pitch, a closed stance on another pitch, he can do an extavangant movement of lifting his arms far above his head on one pitch and then, on the next pitch simply move his hands together in front of his stomach.

Now I have no idea what the people in San Antonio think like. I will make the statement that they do understand the pitching rules . . . we just have one umpire from that area that has a misunderstanding of many rules . . . the pitching rule is only today's issue.

Re: Follwing along
 

Sorry, chief, you're just making stuff up. A pitcher can deliver differently every pitch of the game if he so chooses, as long as the umpire doesn't judge a quick-return pitch.

Do me a favor. Find your little pearl of wisdom somewhere in the pitching rules or case plays and post them for we unwashed masses.

OK, SAump, this will clarify your position for all, so there is no confusion.

What will you call in this situation:

A pitcher delivers like Valenzuela the whole game, then the next pitch he pitches one like Randy Johnson.

Both were done legally for their respective styles.

Are you calling a balk? Yes or no?

last little pearl of wisdom
 

I have been saving this last bit of wisdom for those who incorrectly believe anything or everything is possible.

If a pitcher is ambidextrous, the umpire shall require the pitcher to face a batter as either a left-handed or a right-handed pitcher, but not both.

That, my friends, cuts down on about half of all the possibilities these other guys mention. Everything else in their bullpen has definitely been exaggerated for our viewing pleasure by at least another quarter.

Now I'll give it a rest to find the basis for my two simple BALK rulings. I would appreciate any and all information pointing me in the RIGHT direction.

Please PAUSE a bit more
 

I repeat, "His motion must be consistent throughout the game." That also includes any (LONG) pause, which I will now take before my next delivery. By the way, TIME is a relative concept.

And,
 

I repeat:

SAUmp you're just plain wrong.

But that isn't a new thing.

Re: last little pearl of wisdom
 

And are you saying that if he pitches right handed to one batter, your going to call a balk if he pitches left-handed to the other.

SAump, give it up and just admit your wrong here. Hell, even I will be the first to admit that I learn new things all the time. Give it up guy, JUST GIVE IT UP. Your are weally, weally wong.

Re: Please PAUSE a bit more
 

Quotation marks (" ") mean that what is inside them is
a verbatim quote. Please enlighten me as to where the
statement in your quote is located.That is, if you can,
of course.

Re: Re: Follwing along
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

Sorry, chief, you're just making stuff up. A pitcher can deliver differently every pitch of the game if he so chooses, as long as the umpire doesn't judge a quick-return pitch. Do me a favor. Find your little pearl of wisdom somewhere in the pitching rules or case plays and post them for we unwashed masses.

"Hey, Blue, that pitcher is balking!"

"It's OK, coach. The balk is a part of his natural motion."

Holy Steel Curtain SA, you are defensive!

Your original post mentions a doe. That's either a female deer or the note of C. Neither one can commit a balk.

The only words that come close to what you may be talking about are in 6-2-4d. Balk: "failing to pitch to the batter in a continuous motion immediately after any movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery" This dosen't even imply that a pitcher does anything consistently. It says if he starts a motion that commits him to pitch and he doesn't, we call a balk.

Also, please don't call guys out. I don't see the need. You are making what seems to be an absurd point that may just be worded badly. Just like on the field, calm down, take a deep breath...O.K., tell me what you saw.

D-MAN

SA is alone on an island, a very small island. For all the new guys out there, like the one who started this post, pay heed, there is good advice to be had here, and there is some that is best ignored.

[Edited by DG on Feb 19th, 2006 at 11:26 PM]

Lets call it like DG, absurd
 

DG said, "Mechanics do not have to be consistent throughout the game."

Are you a pitching coach DG? The opposite of consistent is inconsistent. Your point is just as absurd as the largeones, which is identical to yours. If the pitching is inconsistent, then it isn't very GOOD.

"Most good pitchers will vary their delivery with runners on base so base stealers don't get a consistent read which will make base stealing easy."

The word consistent does not mean SAME and I never used the word SAME. There were other comments about the set position and some about the stretch. It was a stretch to believe that consistent motion/mechanics means the same as "the same" pitching delivery. But somehow these comments were later attributed to me. Excuse me, I do believe the record shows that my comments were ONLY about the CONSISTENT mechanics and a couple of balk interpretations.

"As long as the delivery is legal, there is nothing illegal about varying the delivery from pitch to pitch or batter to batter."

I do love the 1st half of that sentence, it just about covers everything legal. Did I or anyone else present that legal sitch as an illegal balk? I think NOT. But you put me in that delicate position of being in the opposite corner once again, didn't you?

In summary, taking my comments out of context makes DG appear to be a more intelligent writer. In reality, DG's comment are more than absurd on face value alone. They are even more absurd when he tries to attach them to anyone else. I refuse to discuss a sitch with one hand tied behind my back. I never even hinted at anything DG said in his opening thread. For him to put me in a box and close it like that is very cute. It's funnier when everyone here jumps on the same ole bandwagon. If that is any indication of his other skills, I wouldn't brag about them.

Re: Lets call it like DG, absurd
 

Is your name GW Bush? It is ok to say I screwed up, you really won't be thrown off the forum. You have taken this beyond nauseaum, absurdity and stupidity.

Three words, "I am wrong".

The truth will set you free.

Re: Lets call it like DG, absurd
 

Even if what you're saying about inconsistent pitching not being very good, which by the way isn't true, that still wouldn't make inconsistency illegal.

Did you really believe this last pearl of wisdom?

The defintion of consistency is to maintain a steadfast adherence to the same form.


Tim.

Can we simplify this a bit, so I can clarify for myself what SA is trying to say...

SA, in answering, don't refer to any previous posts or quotes of you or misquotes of you from earlier in this thread. Just answer these two questions as shortly as you possibly can.

A) 1-1, 4th inning, R1. Pitcher uses a slidestep, throws a ball. Next pitch, pitcher does not use a slidestep, throws a strike. Everything else being the same, are you calling a balk?

B) Pitcher has been throwing submarine style the entire game, a la Chad Bradford. In the 5th inning, the first pitch is an overhand screwball. Balk or no?

In Addition:
 

Following mcrowder's rules:

During the first 5 1/3 innings of play F1 has been using a full wind-up before throwing each pitch when appropriate.

With a count of 2 Balls and 2 strikes the pitcher, while legally following all rules that determine a quick return pitch (i.e. he peers in and takes his gin, etc), he then delivers his pitcher with little or no wind-up, do you call a balk?

I think I'm going to have to eject the pitcher when I see him "peer in and take his gin." I don't need a pitcher hammered out there on the mound!


Sorry, Tee. Just couldn't resist.


Tim.

Duck and Goose
 

Did you find the SAME definition in your dictionary?
He maintained a steadfast adherence to the same form.

A simple search of defintion of consistent reveals the following.

con·sis·tent [ kən sÃ*stənt ]
adjective
Definitions:
1. coherent: reasonably or logically harmonious
The evidence is consistent with the defendant's statement.
Their accounts of the incident just aren't consistent.
2. reliable: able to maintain a particular standard or repeat a particular task with minimal variation
He's one of the most consistent hitters in the league.
3. NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS THREAD
4. logic free of contradiction: containing no provable contradiction

Let's see together:
1. See coherent or harmonious: kinda reminds me of continuous fluid-like motion or frequency, like habitual
2. See reliable: maintain standard w/ minimal variation
Did you happen to see what they said about HITTERS? I wonder if the same thing is true about good pitchers? Can't be cause SAump said so, could it?
3) A math thing: You wouldn't understand.
4) NO contradiction: Have I not maintained my point of view all along? I would say so. It was NOT because I love to argue the same identical thing over and over. It was because I consistently made the point using very different words. The words which others have taken out of CONTEXT are NOT CONSISTENT with my original statements.

I said he must be consistent, whatever form he chooses to use (ala Fernando's 3/4 back twist or the underhanded ankle guy). I suppose everybody thought I said pitchers must have the same motion for 3/4 pitch or underhand pitch. But again, I never said that because it is impossible Toodles. See you want me to say that a pitcher must maintain the same form (100%) with absolutely NO variation. But I already said each pitcher may have his own quirks. I also pointed out how pitchers with very different pitching styles are still consistently LEGAL.

SO don't be too disappointed if I don't let the ambidextrous RHP become a LHP in the same half-inning, by rule.

Later Toodles....

~Sigh~
 

See, SAUmp cannot answer a simple "yes" or "no" question.

We all tried and now it is time to simply "give up".

One guy doesn't get it.

Sad, sad I tell you.

Re: ~Sigh~
 

Why are you surprised? This is a guy who thinks baseballs can defy the laws of physics.

As I posted earlier, a fastball CAN rise. I can prove it mathematically, and yes, I was a physics major.

Of course, to rise, it must be thrown at over 135 MPH...

PS - by RULE, an ambidextrous pitcher can pitch to 1 batter righty and the next lefty. He just can't switch during a single batter.

I believe the real life example of this's name was Monte Williams in the Expos farm system, about 5 years ago.

Sorry, every physicist I contacted, (4) including one at the Fermi Lab, has stated that a pitched baseball cannot rise as it crosses the plate.

Add to that, the only ML baseball pitcher with a degree in physics who, while acknowleging that some active pitchers believe in the myth, also knows better. But all that was said before. No need to start the debate over again.

I'm not meaning to reopen that debate, as it "spun" out of control...

But ask your physicist friend to calculate the amount of spin needed to make the very best curveball curve such that it ends 3 feet sideways from where it would have ended had it not curved, given an initial V of 85 mph. Increase the velocity of the ball to 100 for a fastball, using the same spin.

He/she will quickly and easily be able to prove that even if a pitcher could put the same amount of backspin on a ball that a curveball pitchers puts in sidespin, 100 mph will not be enough to increase the Bernouli force enough to curve the ball upward enough to counteract gravity (which, on a 100 mph fastball, lowers the ball by about 6 feet).

However, use the same spin, and let our pitcher throw it 135 mph (actually fractions more) - the Bernouli Force curving the ball upward will now equal the gravity force curving it downward. Given the same spin, anything in excess of 135 mph will be able to curve upward more than gravity curves it downward, at least until the point that wind resistance lowers the ball's velocity to below 135 mph.

To put to rest the "impossible" faction's argument, consider a wiffleball, or even a solid plastic ball - obviously it can rise, right? Anyone remember TracBall? The white styrofoam one was easy to make rise, the yellow plastic not as easy, but still possible. The denser the object, the faster the spin must be to make it counteract gravity (even if briefly), and the faster it must be thrown.

ANY object, even a solid lead ball, if thrown with enough speed and enough spin, can curve upward to counteract gravity's force. The heavier, the more spin and speed needed.

Baseball's speed, given an equal spin to a MLB pitcher's curve ball, lands at around 135mph.

(Any nonsense about lift can be disproved easily if I have to).

(Sigh)

We all make choices in life. I'll go with the F.N.A.L. and the other professionals.

They were not only uniform in their responses and explanations, they also understood the question.

Thanks, anyway.

RISING AMBERS
 

I would love to get in on that RISE BALL discussion again, just not in this thread. Too bad the original was deleted with over 200 replies and 3000 views. I thought it was destined for 300 replies and 5000 views. Would that have put the post in The Official Forum Hall of Fame?

As far as the LHP and RHP in the same half-inning goes; I thought the rule provides that a LHP or RHP must complete the half-inning before making the switch. The book does say a batter and not a half-inning. Facing one bater LH and another RH might become too complicated because it raises too many issues. Casewriters are lazy people. I suppose if an umpire shall require that the pitcher face a batter either LH or RH, it wouldn't be much of a step to REQUIRE him to complete the inning too. I know the much needed editorial change would be much shorter.

I probably wouldn't allow it as a matter of safety. I wouldn't want him to get hurt wearing the wrong glove and all. Would I charge the coach with a visit to the mound? Does the team lose the DH? Does he get another 8 warm up pitches? I don't see a rule that would allow a pitcher to receive two warmup opportunities per innning or return as pitcher if he sits out an innnig. Does it count towards his allowable innings per week? I wouldn't want him to get hurt just to enter the Guinness Book of Records on my watch. I rather say NO and TOSS the coach because I said SO. After all his pitcher wouldn't be properly equipped. But if the NCAA/NFHS would like to bail out the defense once again and pass the rule in favor of it, and put it in the rule book in black and white. I suppose my opinion wouldn't matter very much. I know I would find it in NFHS 6-1-1.5.

To hear that it was done at the MLB level is fascinating. Was it part of the marketing plan to get the fans back in the bleachers. Pitchers at that level throw a large number of pitches and put a lot of stress on their arm just warming up. I wouldn't think he had the time to properly warm-up from both sides. Would his numbers (STATS) be any better than any of the other 7-12 pitchers waiting in the bullpen? I guess their set-up men and closers all suck. Did the club announce the pitching change over loud speakers? Now in for #97 is #97. Sounds too good to be true. Imagine the indorsements for ambidextrous gloves when your the only player in MLB that needs to use it. Chicks dig the ambidextrous handling.

Re: RISING AMBERS
 

You know, it is one thing not to get it.

But when you don't get, that you don't get it. It's a sad day.

Re: RISING AMBERS
 

Too complicated ??? How does the change of arms
complicate your duties? You wouldn't allow it as
a matter of safety ? There you go again, changing
rules to suit your desires. If a rule allows it,
where do you get off disallowing it ? OOO.....OOO...
OOO....OOO.

Egads,
 

I'd rather poke my eyes out with a hot iron, but what the hey!

Greg Harris of the Padres was the last MLB pitcher to pitch both right and left handed during the same MLB game.

Harris wore a pitcher's glove that was legal to wear on either hand.

Harris was allowed to warm up ONCE during each inning from both arms (not sure that makes sense). No charged conferences were committed if he simply moved the glove from one hand to the other.

He was forced to follow the remainder of rules of when he was allowed to change.

We know now that PWL is just making stuff up to cover his incorrect view of the rule. I for one know when to quit trying to HELP anyone. We are there.

Trying to play the safety card is an age old dodge for those who have no bullets left in the chamber.

I, for one, am now moving on . . .

Re: RISING AMBERS
 

What? "I thought the rule said X... the book says the opposite". What?!?!?!

What issues? Complicated to who? What an inane statement.

Wouldn't be much of a step... about the same step as seeing that 3 strikes equals an out and taking the step to calling 2 strikes an out in your game. The rule is clear. Why ad lib at all?

If OBR or FED felt this was a safety issue, they would address it as such. You're making things up again.

Nice of you to have concern. I'm sure the pitcher is quite capable of either switching gloves, or having one made for him (Monte Williams, if that was indeed his name, had a legal, approved glove that he could simply swap from one hand to the other)

No - why - when did the coach visit the mound. No - why would the team lose the DH just because a pitch was thrown with 2 different hands in the same inning. Completely irrelevant. No - decent question there, but with a precedent set for us to follow. The pitcher only gets his normal allowed warmups - he can throw them with whatever hand he wants to throw them with.

OOO. So now you decide on which rules to use? You would never work again around here. I'm sure the pitcher would be properly equiped - it's not like this (pitching both-handed) is a spur of the moment decision by the pitcher. If he wasn't properly equipped - fine, deal with that on its own. This IS in the rulebook - no need to pass a new rule.

It was only AA - he never made it further as far as I heard. It was not marketing - this guy pitched just as well with each arm, and he based his handedness on the handedness of the next batter. The rule regarding not switching DURING a batter was actually put in SPECIFICALLY after this pitcher and a switch hitter had a standoff and the umpire (who ruled with the eventual rule anyway, but had no rulebook to back him up at the time) had to do something just to get the game going. This guy was a starter, and from all I heard, pitched deep into the game sometimes simply because he had half the wear and tear on the arm that a normal pitcher would have. There were games where he simply was having a bad day one way or the other, and he'd stick with the other hand.

Wow--- I say all that about the AA guy I knew about... and then read Tim's post.

I had no idea Greg Harris pitched both ways. I do remember him, but had never heard/seen him pitch like this.

I do know that the rule change was specifically caused by the AA guy (and it's only my admittedly faulty memory supplying the name to me... can't find it on the net anywhere - I'm pretty sure I'm close, but could be slightly off on the name).

ambidextrous gloves?
 

I never even heard ambidextrous baseball gloves existed. You're telling me there is a thumb hole on both sides of the glove, or room for SIX fingers. That's legal?
I would definitely get one of them gloves if I was pitching for a cool 4 million a year. I can only imagine what pitchers might be hiding in that extra hole for the shorter fingers, where the longer fingers can still reach. Are the First and Third BASE UMPIRES ever going to check the inside of the pitcher's glove before he enters and leaves the playing field? Hmmm.

--------------------
GUYS, I know I haven't answered all your questions. Maybe its because there is so damn many of them. Well, I wanted to think about some of my answers a bit. Please be patient, I'll try to get to some of the better ones.

I just thought that since some of you took umbrage at my finger pointing on this thread, I would POINT out that there is a FINGER POINTING lesson on the "Switching Batters Boxes in Pony baseball" thread too.

Physics History Lesson
 

Physics History Lesson
Still think 135 mph baseball will not RISE? Well using your info, I calculated a 1 pound bowling ball will have to travel faster then 432 mph to get any LIFT at all.

I know one thing, from 60 feet it may not rise. Are you happy? Don't be, because at that velocity I doubt gravity will have much of an influence either. I can almost guarantee a horizontal flight path over 60 feet. My question is how long will it stay airbourne and what speed will it be traveling when it hits the ground? Then you have a measure of deceleration and drag.

Now take the LIFT coefficient of a NON-spinning leather cowhide baseball WITH SEAMS traveling 100 mph and compare it to a smooth concrete bowling ball withOUT SEAMS traveling 432 mph across 60 feet. Care to bet which has a greater chance of RISING?

But I suppose your physics friends wouldn't wanna answer that. Because if they did, you would have to SAY YOUR WRONG, baseballs can rise if thrown hard enough. Again, it has nothing to do with SPIN, its LIFT! Something NEWTON didn't work on back in the 1600's. Care to ask your physics friends how many feet of concrete or STEEL can stop a 432 mph bowling ball after 60 feet. I think the Momentum Effect would project right through 10 feet of concrete or 3 feet of steel. But I just made that up because it sounds good. Doesn't matter anyway because back in the 1600's ships were made out of wood and airplanes didn't exist. Yep, time to update your physics books again!

Re: Physics History Lesson
 

God, you're funny.

My Physics degree will not let that nonsense pass, on the off chance that there's one uninformed person out there reading this drivel. There's only one word that comes to mind here... and in the interest of keeping with the policy we've recently been reminded of, I'll direct it at the argument, and not the poster. SA, I'm not calling you stupid. But the argument you just posted is just flat stupid.

Before I explain why, I wish to note that I am saying a 135mph fastball with the same amount of spin used on a primo curveball, applied as backspin instead of sidespin, WILL rise. You seemed to have thought I was saying a 135 mph fastball would not rise.

First, gravity works with the same acceleration on ALL objects - be they baseballs, bowling balls, or peas. There are other forces (such as wind resistance) that will react differently to these items, but the affect of gravity on ANY object moving at 90 mph over 60 feet 6 inches is identical. If you throw a baseball that distance at that speed, it will drop a certain amount. If you can manage to propel a bowling ball 90 mph, it will also drop exactly the same amount over the same distance, due to gravity. (Calculate it - it's about a 6 foot drop).

Second, and more importantly, your concept of lift is so far wrong that a high-school physics student should be able to shoot holes in it.

So, for you and anyone who might be swayed by the argument, I'll simplify.

Lift is essentially the force of wind resistance hitting an angular object, and transferring that force in a perpendicular direction to the angle it is hitting (usually this is "up" when you're calling it lift, but there is such a thing as negative lift - which would be downward).

A plane has lift because the wind hitting the bottom of the wings is transferred perpendicularly to the wing itself - ie. up and back.

By definition, a spherical object has zero lift. Period end of story. The wind resistance hitting the bottom half of the ball DOES apply upward force to the ball. Assuming the ball is travelling parallel to the ground, however, the wind resistance hitting the TOP half of the ball applies EXACTLY equal downward force to the ball. EXACTLY. Hence the zero lift. (It should be noted that if the ball has an initial vector that is slightly downward, the "lift" calculated would be negative (i.e. downward))

PS - you briefly mentioned seams. You also said non-spinning. A non-spinning non-spherical object (such as a baseball with seams) WILL behave in odd ways. It is similar to lift, but not in the way you're mentioning. So, a knuckleball, for example, CAN rise. (A bowling ball without holes, thrown with no spin at a similar speed as a knuckleball would NOT behave like a baseball knuckleball).

However, I don't think that was anyone's argument (yours or the other side's). We were talking about a fastball, which does spin. And it is spin which causes the movement of a baseball (ask anyone who has seen a curveball. Have you seen one?)

Corrections, Mr. Editor
 

Gravity cannot be used to explain UPWARD motion. I applaud your effort to include other forces. Aerodynamical terms MUST be considered.

1) Gravity is NOT identical on all round objects (outside a VACUMM). The atmosphere is definitely not a vacumm. A beach ball is much larger than a bowling ball. A bowling ball is much larger than a baseball. Gravitational comparisons must also take mass and surface area into consideration. So gravity doesn't act on all ROUND objects in an identical manner in our atmosphere.

2) PRIMARY forces provided by the pitcher (such as a 100 mph WIND RESISTANCE) generate LIFT, a small upward perpendicular force acting on a 5 ounce baseball. My concept of WIND RESISTANCE and LIFT have been CONSISTENT for some time now in the AIR I BREATH. Let me now correct some of the kids mistakes.

3) Wind resistance acts upon any moving object in a direction OPPOSITE to the direction of the moving object. Swing a ping pong paddle up and down or left and right. The wind resistance is quite noticable in the opposite direction. This is true with a tennis racquet and this is true with a 3 inch baseball traveling 100 mph.

4) Lift results from an air pressure gradient between the top half and bottom half of the baseball. The small DOWNWARD angle (remember gravity) of the baseball hitting the air at 100 mph provides sufficient LIFT for it to RISE a wee bit. Some people have actually seen it. I haven't.

5) There is such a thing as negative lift - downward DRAG acting on a baseball traveling at an upward angle.

6) "A plane has lift because the wind hitting the bottom of the wings is transferred perpendicularly to the wing itself - ie. up and back." That IS NOT true. If it was, the wings would be ripped off any airplane, and it would fall to the ground. A thin sheet of wing material cannot withstand the wind pressure. The wing actually cuts through the wind. The front edge is ROUND. The pressure DIFFERENCE creates a magical LIFT, one that doesn't rip the wings off a 747. Its only magical to those who do not understand how such a large heavy airplane made out of a thin SHEET METAL can move so slowly off the ground.

7) A spherical object has zero lift. ... (It should be noted that if the ball has an initial vector that is slightly downward, the "lift" calculated would be negative (i.e. downward)) Correction i.e Downward is NOT opposite of downward. UPWARD is, and that is why it is possible for a baseball to RISE ^ above horizontal. Negative and Zero lift at low VELOCITY is certainly possible, but negative, zero and positve lift is also possible at high VELOCITY.

8) You briefly mentioned seams. --> Seams add to WIND Drag and WIND DRAG adds to LIFT to a slower moving knuckle ball or a much faster RISING fastball. The principles are not entirely different because they are identical.

9) "We were talking about a fastball, which does spin. And it is spin which causes the movement of a baseball (ask anyone who has seen a curveball. Have you seen one?)" -> Wind resistance on the spinnning seams actually causes the curve you see. If a person could spin the ball fast enough, then the higher velocity of a RISING fastball would not be needed. A slow curve can be thrown at 50 mph.

I would love to say thanks for trying, I applaud the effort.

I'd send you a copy of my physics degree, but you'd be unable to read it.

Everyone with a brain can stop at "Gravity does not work the same on different objects". Good god.

Yeah, the last I remember, objects with mass fall to earth at a uniform 32 feet per second. Is this not correct, mccrowder?

I remember it as a rate of acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s

Re: BACK TO THE TOPIC ON HAND
 

I agree that in many respects the high school field should be an extension of the classroom, particularly when it comes to student and teacher behavior.

However, I am the arbiter, not the teacher. While I take advantage of a few "teachable" moments, it is not my primary duty.

I have also found that one of the best ways to teach a pitcher about balks is to call them. To do otherwise risks teaching pitchers either they are not balking or that they can get away with it.

Their velocity towards earth increases at that rate, yes. (Your statement seems to imply that the velocity itself is 32 fps, which is not true, except right at the end of the 1st second... but I didn't think that was what you meant).

Garth is right as well.

Re: Re: Re: BACK TO THE TOPIC ON HAND
 

Originally posted by PWL

Snip:

Basically, it's the little stuff like not stopping long enough, or holding their arm out in front of their body. I always get the obvious stuff.[/QUOTE]

There is no required amount of time that the pitcher must be stopped while using the set position. The rule states that the pitcher must come to a complete stop.
If this is not the obvious stuff then what is?

Umm, isn't the velocity 16 fps at the end of the first second ((start velocity + stop velocity)/2)? Acceleration is 32 fpsps. That is, of course, in the absence of all other forces.

Disclaimer: I'm just a rat ;)

Actually, acceleration is 9.8m per second per second. The 32 feet per second per second is a close approximation that is acceptable coming from a rat. ;)

Just to clarify, you're asking if the velocity is 16 fps at the end of the first second because you're using the formula (start V (0 fps) plus end V (32 fps))/2? Read what you wrote again.

End V = (Start V + End V) /2?

No, End V equals End V.

DISTANCE TRAVELLED is 16 feet, if that's what you meant. End V is, well, End V (32 fps).

:)

I guess a DUH is in order here. Sorry.

Say goodbye, John Hastings.

Mick:

To avoid any further embarassment to an outstanding young man would you please delete all traces of the post's made by 'Hastings' aka. Walter Rucker.

The serve no purpose other than to try to create a flame war between the members of this board and a lunatic.


Thank you,


Tim.

Brad will take care of that, BigUmp56.
mick

<b>But to get back to the subject at hand, I what them to come to a complete stop for at least one second. That's what works for me.
</b>


Two strikes and out would work for me, but I'm constrained by the rules.

I envy you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BACK TO THE TOPIC ON HAND
 

I thought the rule said complete and discernable. In my discernable estimation they are not stopping long enough before they go to the plate. I want that small pause in there that tells me and everybody else they have stopped. Like the one thousand one count. That is what I'm asking for. They get going too fast sometimes.

But to get back to the subject at hand, I what them to come to a complete stop for at least one second. That's what works for me.[/quote]

There is no set time for the stop. The FED book says complete and discernable stop, while OBR got rid of the "discernable" part many years ago, because it was hard to define discernable. The pro rules also tried a "one second stop" rule, but it too went by the wayside because it was not being uniformly called.

All in all, it's your judgment as to what is or isn't a good stop.

Hehehehe,
 

"But to get back to the subject at hand, I what (sic) them to come to a complete stop for at least one second. That's what works for me."

This ties for the dumbest statement on the internet.

HOWEVER, he also holds this record far ahead of all other individual posts.

"What works for me . . . "

This is funny stuff.

Is the Evans balk video available for purchase on-line?

That resource should help PWL get a better understanding of how to see and call a balk.


Tim.

You must be forgetting that you illegally converted the file to a word doc. and sent it to me, Walter.

Don't you have your own web-site to run into the ground?



Tim.

He's baaaaaaaaaaaackk!

Re: Re: Hehehehe,
 

I don't mean to get in the line of fire in your pi$$ing contest, but I have to correct you.

I've enjoyed dinner with Tee in Portland, and I can tell you, he's an effin' laugh riot.

Re: Gee Whiz
 

Hey, you know something? Tim was really trying to help you. He wasn't insulting you. That is all anyone ever tried to do was help you learn how to umpire better. Please don't say that you don't need the help, because based on certain things you say, it is glaringly obvious that you do. Nobody is putting you down (well, maybe some are, but Tim wasn't), so take the chip down off your shoulder.

PWL:

You have stooped to the level of John Hastings, AKA WJR. You must be so proud to be in that company. Trust me, it will be remembered by many.

Re: Gee Whiz
 

I'm not sure why you felt the need to take a cheap shot at me. I wasn't insulting you in any way. We had the opportunity to watch the Evans balk video at an association meeting last year. I found it extremely helpful to me in calling balks last season. I just thought that if it was still available for purchase it might help you as well.

I made it very clear on OU that I disagreed with Walter on soliciting coaches to hold a balk clinic. If you'll remember correctly I stated the same opinion here for JJ and Windy who both hold clinics on balks for teams. However, neither of them solicit the work. While I don't agree with soliciting the work I do feel that if asked I would consider it an honor to do it myself.

The very idea of Walter Rucker trying to teach anyone anything about umpiring baseball is laughable. Especially the intricacies of calling balks.


Tim.

At least you admitt to being a con artist, Walter. I'm sure that will bode well with your new "officials web-site for officiating officianatos." I'll bet they're lining up to pay you $10.00 a pop to take a test on-line writin by an idiot on Moodle.

I'm sure there are a multitude of officials that will trust you with their personal information after the stunts you've pulled, especially with the idea of documenting finacial information through your new scheduling software.

I can't wait to hear what the NCAA and the NFHS have to say about your ridiculous proposals. I wonder what kind of nonsense you were telling those "investors" you kept talking about, and what you'll tell them when you turn their investments south after you fail.

You're right though. We did make the mistake of trusting you to be true to your word. I say we because it was a concensus among 58 individuals to move to your forum from the Google group. Now you've made it painfully obvious to everyone else that you are not a man to be trusted. Your word is as useless as the idea that you could re-invent the wheel with your web-site.


Tim.

McDensity
 

"First, I find it interesting when we have a thread that is only kept alive by ONE poster who thinks, honestly, that he is correct."

So let me be as clear as I possibly can: This thread, kept alive by ONE poster who thinks, honestly, that he is correct; has now grown by 3 pages in a single day.

I can honestly say, JMOHO, that any discussion about the length of the PAUSE that spreads over 3 pages a day doesn't need another one of MOHO.

Lefty -Righty Pitch after Pitch
 

"What will you call in this situation: A pitcher delivers like Valenzuela the whole game, then the NEXT PITCH he pitches one like Randy Johnson. Both were done legally for their respective styles. Are you calling a balk? Yes or no?"

As discussed by rule, I cannot call it a balk. My call at the MLB level would be to allow, on proper appeal, the OC to choose from the possible results of the play. I would likely call "No Pitch" repeatedly at NFHS level before the batter puts the ball in play. In this sitch, I would call time and inform the pitcher that he must, by rule, pitch to a single batter from either LH or RH side. I shall enforce my requirement that "His motion must be consistent throughout the game" despite the many educated protesters on this site.

I would not inform him that he is allowed to switch from LHP to RHP after the batter completes his time at-bet. Its not my job to inform him of the rules. I would hope that he finishes the inning without switching from LHP to RHP. I would also hope the pitcher is actually as ambidextrous as his coach thinks. I already knew about the pitch to pitch rule. It was I who originally quoted the RULEBOOK for all to see. As I stated previously, a pitcher is certainly LEGAL to switch after each inning because he has completed his after EACH AT BAT requirement.

I would also like to thank Tim and McCrowder for the RELATIVE clarifying info provided from the actual LHP to RHP. Perhaps my mechanics will now remain consistent. I hope its all TRUE. I have already argued switching bater-to-batter-to batter-...(37 times in 3 innings)...-boxes. The information they provided is very valuable for us-less-experienced. I just thought I had to pull teeth to get it. I don't like showboating from either side in a GAME. So stop teasing so much just to get a logical ^fastball^ comment!