Starting, then stopping, the windup.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

NFHS rules.

Nobody on, pitcher in the windup position. He starts the windup, stops and resets. Is this legal? I think it is in OBR, but what about NFHS? If it is not legal, is it an illegal pitch, dead ball, and a ball awarded?

It is NOT legal in NFHS (see 6-1-2).

Penalty -- The ball is dead immediately when an illegal pitch occurs. A ball is awarded the batter (with no one on)

[bossman72]

yep, like he said, ball with nobody on.

OBR- it is nothing.

[justanotherblue]

Only in NFHS... seems they like to award the offense for just about anything the pitcher does no matter a runner on or not. Their reasoning, if it's illegal with a runner on, it should be with no runners on. Regardless of an advantage gained or not.....so... illegal... ball to batter, balk if runners on

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

Only in NFHS... seems they like to award the offense for just about anything the pitcher does no matter a runner on or not. Their reasoning, if it's illegal with a runner on, it should be with no runners on. Regardless of an advantage gained or not.....so... illegal... ball to batter, balk if runners on

But in their infinite wisdom, they allow the pitcher to go to his mouth while in contact with the rubber... they are geniuses at FED HQ, you gotta admit.

[MadCityRef]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

But in their infinite wisdom, they allow the pitcher to go to his mouth while in contact with the rubber... they are geniuses at FED HQ, you gotta admit.

In Illinois the IHSA says it's still a balk. Bringing the hand up is the start of the pitching motion. Balk.
I never had a problem of pitchers doing this when it was illegal anyway.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

But in their infinite wisdom, they allow the pitcher to go to his mouth while in contact with the rubber... they are geniuses at FED HQ, you gotta admit.

F1 has to wipe his hand off before contacting the ball.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

But in their infinite wisdom, they allow the pitcher to go to his mouth while in contact with the rubber... they are geniuses at FED HQ, you gotta admit.

Not in Illinois.

[bossman72]

PA says it's a ball any time the pitcher goes to the mouth while on the rubber whether he wipes or not (except after he's come set or assumed one of the windup positions, then it's a balk). So pretty much it's exactly like the pro rule except replace "18 foot circle" with "rubber" in the wording of the rule.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by bossman72

PA says it's a ball any time the pitcher goes to the mouth while on the rubber whether he wipes or not (except after he's come set or assumed one of the windup positions, then it's a balk). So pretty much it's exactly like the pro rule except replace "18 foot circle" with "rubber" in the wording of the rule.

Originally Posted by MadCityRef

In Illinois the IHSA says it's still a balk. Bringing the hand up is the start of the pitching motion. Balk.
I never had a problem of pitchers doing this when it was illegal anyway.

And this is exactly the problem with the NFHS rule(s). Same code, different interpretations. If FED would stop tinkering with the rules, we wouldn't have this.

[Illini_Ref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Not in Illinois.

I went to the last rules meeting in Illinois on the 15th. The IHSA had new information for the going to the mouth rule. It seems that the NF has made a mess of this rule. We were told to disregard any NF publication in reference to this rule. Here is Illinois guidelines, and they were not this way at the early rules meetings.

Nobody on. Pitcher on the rubber. Goes to his mouth then touches the ball. Dead ball. Ball to batter.

Nobody on. Pitcher on rubber. Goes to mouth, wipes off, goes to ball. Nothing

Runners on. Pitcher on rubber. Goes to mouth. Dead immediately. Balk.

I'm guessing the latter is because of the movement, not because he went to his mouth.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

Runners on. Pitcher on rubber. Goes to mouth. Dead immediately. Balk.

I'm guessing the latter is because of the movement, not because he went to his mouth.

Here it is:

Runner on. Pitcher on rubber. Goes to mouth. BALL

Runner on. Pitcher on rubber and set, both hands in front of his body. Goes to mouth. BALK, not for going to his mouth but for separating his hands after being set.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

I went to the last rules meeting in Illinois on the 15th. The IHSA had new information for the going to the mouth rule. It seems that the NF has made a mess of this rule. We were told to disregard any NF publication in reference to this rule.

This is a major problem. Often times we are told by assignors or interpretors (either association or state) that some rules are subject to more lenient enforcement.

But what happens when you don't call whats written in the book and are questioned by a manager as to why you're ignoring a certain rule? Is there going to be a protest that will be upheld?

For this example, "Blue, that's a balk! You gotta call that!" In response, the umpire steps in it and says, "I know that's what's written, but I was told to let it go."

Are we going to be backed up? I would hope so, but there are no guarantees. This, IMO, is hanging the officials out to dry. Why not just follow OBR in this case? I see no safety issue, so is the NFHS just being stubborn?

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

But in their infinite wisdom, they allow the pitcher to go to his mouth while in contact with the rubber... they are geniuses at FED HQ, you gotta admit.

I would suggest using the rule and case book on that one. Both have it right. That is... it's illegal while in contact with the rubber to go to the mouth regardless with runners on or not, balk with. Look at 6-2-1A in the case book. Those wonderful Fed interps or is it twerps... have it wrong. This will also keep you from pulling out your teeth and hair tying to figure out how they could come up with such a ruling. I also keeps it in line with all other rules sets. That was their intent IMHO.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

I would suggest using the rule and case book on that one. Both have it right. That is... it's illegal while in contact with the rubber to go to the mouth regardless with runners on or not, balk with. Look at 6-2-1A in the case book. Those wonderful Fed interps or is it twerps... have it wrong. This will also keep you from pulling out your teeth and hair tying to figure out how they could come up with such a ruling. I also keeps it in line with all other rules sets. That was their intent IMHO.

If they want this rule to be inline with other codes, that's great. Then why don't they just adapt the wording exactly like the other codes? It doesn't make any sense, if they think they made a mistake, just change it back and be finished.

BTW- any of you older guys remember if FED ever had the rule book even remotely close to OBR as far as wording and layout? I've been doing this for about 9 years, and the first time I read the FED book, I was blown away.