2007 OBR Pitching Rule Change question...

[Study the Game]

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?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Study the Game

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?

The "new" wording

b) The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands facing the batter with his pivot foot in contact with, and his other foot in front of, the pitcher’s plate, holding the ball in both hands in front of his body and coming to a complete stop.


I'd bet he hasn't read the new rule.

[David B]

Originally Posted by Study the Game

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?

OOO alert! Sometimes umpires just don't use the best judgement, especially for a "small ball" game.

thanks
David

[TwoBits]

As soon as he said your pitcher was attempting to deceive the runner, any other argument was futile.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

As soon as he said your pitcher was attempting to deceive the runner, any other argument was futile.

No - the rules regarding attempting to deceive do not say anything about just standing there - they pertain to movements designed to deceive the runner. This stands is not just technically legal ... it's SPECIFICALLY legal. If you take "attempting to deceive" as your SOLE criteria (without the rest of the sentence in the rulebook), then even a simple good quick move on a pickoff is a balk, in that the pitcher was moving quickly to attempt to get the runner out (ie, deceive the runner).

"Deceiving the runner" is not a catch-all created to allow umpires to balk stuff they simply don't like. It has a specific use.

[bossman72]

The OP sounds like an "open set" which has been legal since i can remember- unless i misread something in the OP

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

"Deceiving the runner" is not a catch-all created to allow umpires to balk stuff they simply don't like. It has a specific use.

That's what I meant. When the umpire in question used that term, the coach should have known that he was dealing with an umpire that didn't have a good grasp of the rules.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

That's what I meant. When the umpire in question used that term, the coach should have known that he was dealing with an umpire that didn't have a good grasp of the rules.

Fair enough. I misunderstood you to mean that once the umpire claimed it was deceitful that it became a judgement call and not even discussable for the manager. My bad.