Two simple questions.

[Illini_Ref]

1. I realize that in NFHS rules it is now illegal to swing your arm in the "gorilla stance". The NFHS magazine said that this was an illegal pitch and a balk if runners were on base. The IHSA rules video only alluded to it being penalized if runners were on. So, is it illegal with nobody on? If so, is it called when it happens or when a pitch is delivered? I guess my question is does a pitch have to be delivered to be an illegal pitch?

2. If a fielder trips over equipment in the on-deck circle, or if a live ball contacts such equipment, is it anything? Where is this addressed in the rules, or is it?

[johnnyg08]

The gorilla arm really only affects base runners. Without any runners on your not likely to see it. If the pitching motion is not one continuous movement to pitch the ball, I suppose you could have some type of illegal pitch...but as you ask...a moving gorilla arm w/ no runners on base isn't going to have me calling anything.

as for your equipment question...i'm not sure, but I don't think I'm calling anything unless I'd have a lodged ball.

[dash_riprock]

Rules like that annoy me to no end, and it seems they always come from FED. Sometimes I wonder if they (whomever "they" may be) are doing it just to be different, because some of these rules have no discernible raison d'être.

Can someone tell my why:

1. From the set, F1 must come to a complete stop with no runners.

2. The prohibition on turning the shoulders to check a runner begins when F1 brings his hands together rather than when he has come to a stop.

3. A balk is an immediate dead ball.

4. F1 cannot step and throw to a base from the windup position.

Ive had a few too many Czechvars and the gorilla arm set me off. I hope I don't regret this post in the morning.

[bossman72]

1- i wouldn't be calling this an illegal pitch anytime soon

2- if the loose equipment interferes with a play, you can award outs or bases at your discretion. 1-3-7 Penalty

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Rules like that annoy me to no end, and it seems they always come from FED. Sometimes I wonder if they (whomever "they" may be) are doing it just to be different, because some of these rules have no discernible raison d'être.

Can someone tell my why:

1. From the set, F1 must come to a complete stop with no runners.

2. The prohibition on turning the shoulders to check a runner begins when F1 brings his hands together rather than when he has come to a stop.

3. A balk is an immediate dead ball.

4. F1 cannot step and throw to a base from the windup position.

Ive had a few too many Czechvars and the gorilla arm set me off. I hope I don't regret this post in the morning.

For #1, I don't think that has ever been true.

What the hell is a Czechvar?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Rules like that annoy me to no end, and it seems they always come from FED. Sometimes I wonder if they (whomever "they" may be) are doing it just to be different, because some of these rules have no discernible raison d'être.

Can someone tell my why:

1. From the set, F1 must come to a complete stop with no runners.

2. The prohibition on turning the shoulders to check a runner begins when F1 brings his hands together rather than when he has come to a stop.

3. A balk is an immediate dead ball.

4. F1 cannot step and throw to a base from the windup position.

Ive had a few too many Czechvars and the gorilla arm set me off. I hope I don't regret this post in the morning.

(Note that I'm NOT saying that I agree with these decisions, just explaining what I think is FED's rationale.)

1) There shouldn't be any difference between what's legal and not depending on whether runners are on base.

2) No idea, but I don't think it makes a practical difference.

3) To reduce umpire and coach / player confusion

4) To stop coaches from pretending to windup and then picking off a runner. Too many umpires wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the start of a pitch and the motion to throw to a base.

(Many of the differences are an attempt to develop the rules for the lowest-common-denominator of umpire and coach.)

And, for Mr. Tyler -- czechvar is a beer.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

1. I realize that in NFHS rules it is now illegal to swing your arm in the "gorilla stance". The NFHS magazine said that this was an illegal pitch and a balk if runners were on base. The IHSA rules video only alluded to it being penalized if runners were on. So, is it illegal with nobody on? If so, is it called when it happens or when a pitch is delivered? I guess my question is does a pitch have to be delivered to be an illegal pitch?

By rule, it's an illegal pitch. Much like starting a motion in the wind-up and then stopping. That's a ball in FED, nothing in other codes.

I agree with others that it's unlikley to be called.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

And, for Mr. Tyler -- czechvar is a beer.

Not just for him!

Czechvar - World Beer

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Can someone tell my why:

1. From the set, F1 must come to a complete stop with no runners.

.

Since when does F1 has to come set with no runners on? Is this only a fed rule, cause NCAA and OBR F1 doesn't have to.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

Since when does F1 has to come set with no runners on? Is this only a fed rule, cause NCAA and OBR F1 doesn't have to.

Yes, it's a FED rule.

And, it's only an interp (relatively recent) that allows it in NCAA and OBR.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, it's a FED rule.

And, it's only an interp (relatively recent) that allows it in NCAA and OBR.

And it's not a mystery interp, it's right there in both rule books.

OBR: Rule 8.01(b) Comment: With no runners on base, the pitcher is not required to come to a complete stop when using the Set Position.

NCAA 9-b-2: A.R.—With the bases unoccupied, the pitcher does not need to come to a complete and discernable stop.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

What the hell is a Czechvar?

It's the original Budweiser, not to be confused with the Anheuser Busch Budweiser which, IMO, more closely resembles Nik-L-Nip than lager.

[bluehair]

Nik-L-Nip ??

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

(Note that I'm NOT saying that I agree with these decisions, just explaining what I think is FED's rationale.)

1) There shouldn't be any difference between what's legal and not depending on whether runners are on base.

2) No idea, but I don't think it makes a practical difference.

3) To reduce umpire and coach / player confusion

4) To stop coaches from pretending to windup and then picking off a runner. Too many umpires wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the start of a pitch and the motion to throw to a base.

(Many of the differences are an attempt to develop the rules for the lowest-common-denominator of umpire and coach.)

And, for Mr. Tyler -- czechvar is a beer.

I have to disagree with #4. Start of a pitch would be stepping back with the free foot. Stepping back with the pivot foot and then going through the wind up gets you a balk, as would starting the wind up then throwing to a base. That's either a motion that resembles the start of a pitch or it is the motion starting the pitch. The situation in quesiton would simply be a step toward a base with the free foot. The balk would prevent them from pretending to start a pitch and then throwing to a base.

What's there that would confuse an umpire? If a pitcher is in the windup position and steps off with his free foot we don't get confused. Same thing in my book.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Nik-L-Nip ??

Colored sugar water in little wax bottles. You would have to be about 45+ to remember them. You bit off the neck, drank the sweet water then chewed the wax. A treat fer sure.