![]() |
|
|
|||
Added 1/11/10 No. 2
In my list of balks, the following two are consecutive:
a) Pitches from the windup position without maintaining contact with the rubber. b) Pitches from the set position with his pivot foot outside the end of the rubber. 5a. Was it deliberate that these were presented consecutively? What I mean is, was the author purposely distinguishing the windup and set? This bothers me because (a) should apply to both the windup and the set. 5b. Regarding (b), is it practical to be very strict on this, especially in light of the way Evans presents this in his video where he said it is acceptable for the pitcher to at least have half of his foot adjacent to the rubber? |
|
|||
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.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. Quote:
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
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all. |
|
|||
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?
|
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
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... |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Balk/No Balk: LHP fients pickoff the 3rd base | Mike6221 | Baseball | 4 | Sun Jun 07, 2009 09:47pm |
RHP in stretch facing 1st base (balk or no balk) | tem_blue | Baseball | 6 | Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:00pm |
Stealing Home, P in Windup, Balk or No Balk? | johnnyg08 | Baseball | 2 | Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:12am |
Being Lotsa balk talk..... | chris s | Baseball | 9 | Thu Apr 24, 2003 04:42am |