well, it is two different types of pitching motions. in the wind-up, the pitcher moves his free foot differently than when he does from the set.

5b. my thoughts would be to enforce the rule as it's written and to not be overly strict. others will chime in as well, so you can decide what you want to train.

Lapopez,

I'm not clear exactly what you are asking, nor what your "source" is (in re: ...was the author distinguishing...).

So, I'll just share some thoughts I hope you find relevant.

In regard to your 5a, I would agree that the requirement is the same whether pitching from windup or set. The purpose of the rule is to constrain the distance and, to a lesser degree, angle from which the pitcher delivers.

Note that, despite the wording of the rule, ALL pitchers lose contact with the rubber before the ball leaves their hand on EVERY pitch.

Sometimes, the "hole" in front of the rubber makes it problematic for the pitcher to maintain contact. I'll make appropriate "allowance" for that.

In regard to 5b, I follow the Evans guidleines, again making appropriate allowance for the condition of the rubber/mound. And, I believe the constraint is the same, whether the pitcher is pitching from windup or set.

I can't see any significance to the "pairing" or sequence of the two proscriptions.

JM

Ump JM wrote (regarding not facing the batter while throwing the pitch):

"With the pitcher constrained to contact with the rubber and delivering from either the set or windup position, it is virtually impossible to violate 8.05(f) while pitching from windup or set while in contact with the rubber - though I suppose someone could come up with a way if they really tried."

I think this video has made the rounds with many of us on these boards, but anyway, here's a funny YouTube video of a baseball game where F1 does exactly that:

YouTube - Funny: Perfect Pitch

copy and paste to "Funny: Perfect Pitch"

just a little humor...

Thank you, JM. I did find your comments relevant. With regard to what you wrote above, do you adhere to Evans even on the high school field?

Sometimes there's no better interp...if the rule is the same.

Added 1/12/10
 

I'm probably being picky again.

6. From my list, one of the noted balks: "Pitches when the catcher does not have both feet in the catcher's box." Since the rule says the catcher shall have both feet in the catcher's box at the time of the pitch, I would prefer to substitute "Initiates a pitch" for the word "Pitches". Agreed?

7. Ok, what's the deal with rotating and pumping? Is this an old relic too? I think I can picture rotating, but what is pumping?

Sure

Raising the hands over the head. And, yes, it was popular in the earlier parts of the 20th century.

It's my understanding that way back when, there was a pitchers box, similar to the batters box. The pitcher could start at any point within that box and run up and pitch. He could twist and turn during this, literally starting his motion home with his back to the batter. I belive and may very well be wrong, but I do belive it came from a Rounders rule.

The rule doesn't say that at all. It says the catcher must stand in the catcher's box until the pitcher delivers the ball, which can be considerably after the time of the pitch (used primarily for placing runners). The balk penalty is limited to when the pitcher is giving an intentional base on balls.

I'm at work now and I don't have my rule book with me but I have my paper that I will present on Friday. I have from 6-1-1 that the catcher shall have both feet in the catcher’s box at the time of the pitch. Is that wrong?

Sorry - didn't realize you were referring to the FED rule. You have it right.

The old list of balks that I have seems to encompass OBR and FED and I am trying make it specific to FED, which is why I am being picky about the wording.

In FED the catcher must have both feet inside the catcher's box until the time of the pitch. 6-1-1
The time of the pitch is defined as the pitcher making any motion that commits him to pitch. 2-28-3

JJ

The so-called "catcher's balk" really comes into play only with intentional BB. Since FED permits the defense to request an IBB verbally without throwing a pitch, it doesn't come into play.

Of course, to prevent idiotic things the rule must still be there, but I can't see actually calling it unless the catcher's an idiot. And even then I'd stop play and find out what the hell's happening first.

So if you're mentioning 6-1-1 for the sake of completeness in covering balks, fine. But IMO it's a waste of valuable time to spend more than 10 seconds discussing it.

FED doesn't limit it to the IBB like OBR does. But I agree discussing it for more than 10 seconds would be a waste of time.