OK all you young-uns. There WAS a time when they had to stop for one second

From JEA:

It was not until 1950 that the rules committee introduced the complete stop rule. That first official rule required the pitcher to stop for one full second.

In 1964, the rule was amended by dropping the one full second requirement. The new wording merely stated that the pitcher had to come to a stop.


McCarver played 1959-1980 so he was there when the rule changed and should know better, but don't just blow off the one-second stop as pure BS. The belief has a basis in an actual rule - albeit an obsolete one.

Good post Rich.

On SportsCenter the other morning, they were showing highlights from the Series. A Phillie pitcher attempted to bunt, but took it off of the fingers. You guessed it ! The female anchor (McKendry ?) said, "No, he doesn't get first base, the hands are part of the bat.......

I believe I read somewhere long ago that a "change of direction" was considered a stop at one time. It seems like it was from a series of articles written by Nick Bremingan (who was the rules instructor at the Bill Kinnamon umpire school) for "Referee" magazine.

By the laws of physics, when there was a change of direction, there had to have been a stop, and therefor a change of direction technically met the definition of a stop for OBR. I do not know if that is the same ruling now.

You would need some of the veteran umpires to bring us up to speed from that old interpretation to whatever the interpretation is now.

Veterans chime in.

Change of direction was sufficient in NCAA ball until relatively recently. AFAIK, it hasn't been acceptable in OBR for many years.

The "change of direction" was accepted in NCAA. This changed somewhere around 1999 (I think). UCLA professor proved to the NCAA that he could change directions without coming to a stop by simply starting close to the body, dropping his hands as normal but by moving the arms out slightly and raising the hands, there is no stopping of motion. This simple test proved what NCAA umpires were complaining about for years! Umpires were showing this same motion to the NCAA committee but because they were not "professors", no one would believe them. Either way, the rule has been changed.

Ohh I missed that one.... Classic

One of my favorites I heard this year in a men's league. The batter hit the ball which went strait down to the plate and then landed < 1' infront of the plate. The batter made no attempt to run, and the catcher just reached forward grabbed the ball, tagged the batter and I called him out. "What are you talking about the ball is foul when it hits the plate! I've been playing all my life including Independent League and I've never heard of that...." The next batter was the teams coach who told him I was right and asaved him from having some extra time to look it up.

Just this season, I also heard that "ball is foul if it hits the plate" myth...unfortunately I was a fan at the game and didn't play along with a random fan who told me that "the ump sure blew that one" he didn't like the fact that I didn't agree with him...I didn't make a fool of him, simply told him using my "inside voice" that the ump got it right...his response was similar to the "I've been playing/watching baseball for 40 years..." as EmpUmp stated above

Only if the change is exactly 180 degrees.

Travelling in a circle is a constant change of direction but there's no stop. Making a small loop at the bottom of the hand drop is a change of direction but no stop.

...And then they usually say "Read the rules!"

Not a physics major, I take it.

Not a physics major, I take it.

Absolutely not. I'm not even a rocket scientist. I've been hit in the head one to many times by those kids in tball slinging the bat. Guess I will have to hide behind the fence till the next guy comes before putting the ball on the tee.

But, I was just trying to remember the explanation from that article by Nick Bremigan the best I could. Seems like he wrote a series of plays and situation articles years ago for "Referee" magazine and anyone who kept all their old editions could probably help me out here. However, since that interpretation is obsolete from the responses, it does not matter.

That is an insult to 10-year-olds everywhere.

Bob

I paused the game, John, and wrote that McCarverism down into the book on McCarver I'm writing. Damn thing's up to 700 pages I think. I'm never gonna get this thing finished. :D