My question regards the following new 2007 OBR rule: Rules 8.01(a) and 8.01(b): Pitcher’s position on the pitching rubber, delivery of ball to the batter.
Several changes to the pitching rules now allow a pitcher to have only a portion of his pivot foot, rather than the entire foot, in contact with the rubber, which is consistent with some contemporary pitching deliveries. Furthermore, in the windup position, a pitcher is allowed to have his free foot at either side of the rubber, in front of the rubber, on the rubber, or behind the rubber, and to step to either side of the rubber—all of which are commonly accepted current practices. Previous editions of the Rules prohibited this.
Our 11-12 yr old youth league uses OBR rules. Here's my question: In a recent game, a pitcher made his normal delivery from the wind up until a runner reached first base. He then moved to deliver from a set position and, using the new rule, pivoted his pivot foot about 45 degrees to his left (RHP), so his natural shoulder line pointed about half way between home and first base. Before delivering a pitch, the HP umpire called time and instructed the pitcher to put his foot back in position so that the entire side of the pivot foot was in contact with the rubber. Citing the new rule, I asked the ump to explain his 'old rule' interpretation and was told that I 'had misinterpreted the rule' and from the set position, the pitcher must stand sideways so that he faced third base and his shoulders pointed to home plate to deliver as a RHP. "Otherwise,” he said,"No one would ever be able to steal second base". He further stated that he regarded the position the RHP had taken as an "attempt to deceive the runner". Needless to say, I disagree. If the pitcher had been given the opportunity to deliver a pitch, the umpire would have seen that the RHP would have stepped directly toward home to deliver and was otherwise fully in adherence to the rules. What do you say?
Mon Apr 23, 2007, 08:51am
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
