Windup - disengage
 

All - got a question more around mechanics of pitchers in the windup. would like to know the rulings for both OBR and FED.

Pitcher is in the windup and starts his motion. During his motion he picks up his pivot foot and disengages from the rubber during his turn. He then engages his foot back onto the rubber and delivers the ball.

If runners are on base, would this be considered a balk because of the disengagement. I cannot find this in the rules anywhere.

Thanks,
Jeff

eureka25,

The term "disengage" has a very specific meaning within the context of the rules of baseball - namely, that the pitcher "lands" his pivot foot behind the rubber. If he does THAT, yeah, I got a balk w. runners on base.

If, on the other hand, you mean his pivot foot slightly & briefly lost contact with the rubber as it went from "toes home" to "toes toward 3B" (assuming a RHP), then I got "nothin' ".

JM

Doesn't a pitcher in a normal 'wind-up' delivery, momentarily lose contact with the rubber in most cases? Absent a stop in delivery or like JM says, a step BACK off the rubber while delivering the pitch, I have nothing.

Thanks for the quick replies.

My question more goes to the gross "lift-off" of the foot from the rubber as he turns it towards third. I see no advantage he gains towards the runners and batters - so I have nothing as well. That is how I explain it as well

Just curious to see how you guys handle the situation when the coach barks "He is off the rubber and he can't do that."

JS

As indicated before, momentary loss of contact (while repositioning the pivot foot) during delivery is nothing.

Here's a question I ask the coach: If the pitcher begins on top of the rubber in the windup, how is he supposed to get his pivot foot into the hole that develops during the game on just about every field except those maintained by Major League Groundskeepers? The response usually is a dumfounded look, a turn and a walk away.

I'm sure some coach had this called on his pitcher by some overzealous, overly officious, rookie umpire and now believes this to be the rule and it should be called on every pitcher.

"He's fine!" (Followed by "Knock it off." if needed)

Ignore him unless he keeps it up (ie clueless to what ignore means) and then tell him "that's enough".

Running into the pitch?
 

Searched for this topic and revived this thread for my question. When a pitcher in the windup steps back toward 2B with the non pivot foot and in so doing breaks contact with pivot foot to reposition I don't call anything unless the pivot foot comes high enough off the rubber that I judge an advantage in momentum is gained. I haven't had to fend off many complaints on this but when I do I'll tell the coach that the pitcher is or is not "running into the pitch". The call, BTW, is "do not do that."

When some pitchers start their windup facing 3B, the non pivot foot steps back to 1B and the pivot foot can also break contact, some coming a good bit off the rubber. There is no mometum gained toward the plate. Should I require these pitchers to maintain contact if there is no need for foot reposition? Is my "running into the pitch" rationale correct?

What criteria do you use to guage whether the pitcher actually gains an advantage in momentum or not. How do you measure that?

Don't take this the wrong way but, I recommend not conducting science experments out on the mound because, at some point your going to have to prove your hypothesis and that might just get a little tricky. Save that for the "MYTH BUSTERS" and concentrate on calling the balks that can be actually explained as having vilolated a particular rule.

Just my opinion.

No, imo.

~Sigh~
 

99% of you are too young to remember the following:

In the early 1960's pitcher Stan Williams had a strange mastery over the vaunted New York Yankees.

The Yankees could barely place wood to ball for some unknown reason.

Casey Stengel fretted and fretted as his team failed, miserably, to figure out Williams.

Then Stengel had a stroke of genius.

The next time Williams pitched old #37 slowly walked to the plate and filed a strong complaint with the UIC.

"He loses contact with the pitcher's plate (knowing Casey he probably intoned: "the fuc . . . is not on the rubber!") during his movement from wind-up to delivery."

Well, IT WORKED . . . Williams got so worked up he failed miserably in the next few times against the The Bronx Bombers.

Said Stengel later: "I just wanted to mess him up!"

Please guys disregard all of UmpJim's post. It is flat out wrong.

We don't work girls softball with the famous "crow hop" deliveries.

Not being in contact with the pitcher's plate during the tranfer is NORMAL and not illegal.

T

BTW, eventually the Pinstipes traded for Williams and he had a couple of marginally successful seasons in New York.

So even the exaggerated foot lifts should be ignored. Consider me reeducated.