The Official Forum - NFHS Rules: Pitcher's Stances.

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)

- - NFHS Rules: Pitcher's Stances. (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/93320-nfhs-rules-pitchers-stances.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaxRolo (Post 871313)

Illegal Hybrid Stance

http://www.rivercityumps.com/Pics/illegal.jpg

There's nothing illegal about that. That's a set.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt (Post 871320)

There's nothing illegal about that. That's a set.

Not according to the NFHS 2013 Points of Emphasis.

North Carolina office has posted the NFHS viewgraphs at

Baseball

The text indicates that the hybrid stance is illegal because the set position requires the entire pivot foot to be in front of or in contact with or directly in front of the rubber.

So this hybrid stance is illegal because the pivot foor toe is not in contact with the rubber.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rule 6-1-3

... with his entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher's plate.

Is the NFHS saying that it has to be one or the other? It can't be a combination of the two?

Quote:

Originally Posted by john5396 (Post 871329)

The text indicates that the hybrid stance is illegal because the set position requires the entire pivot foot to be in front of or in contact with or directly in front of the rubber.

So this hybrid stance is illegal because the pivot foor toe is not in contact with the rubber.

That's just wrong. Here's the complete sentence from 6-1-3, which defines the set:

"Before starting his delivery, he shall stand with his entire nonpivot
foot in front of a line extending through the front edge of the pitcher’s plate
and with his entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher’s
plate."

So his entire pivot foot must be either in contact with or directly in front of the rubber. The "hybrid stance" image posted above is legal: the entire pivot foot is either in contact with or directly in front of the rubber.

The purpose of the provision is to keep F1 on the rubber: it is NOT legal to have just the toes or just the heel directly in front of the rubber, with the rest of the foot extending beyond the side edge. That lets F1 pitch at an angle, which is a significant advantage.

Nobody in NC or any other state will ever see F1's foot closely enough to enforce that interpretation of the rule. And the problem with the hybrid stance in any case is that pitchers wind up from it, not that they use it in the set.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altor (Post 871344)

Is the NFHS saying that it has to be one or the other? It can't be a combination of the two?

"with his entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher’s plate."

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven (Post 871392)

No, the hybrid stance in the picture is illegal because, the entire pivot foot is in contact with and directly in front of the rubber.

The rule says "either", "or".

And if the pitchers windup from it, then it is again illegal because, "the pitcher's non-pivot foot shall be in any position on or behind a line extending through the front edge of the pitcher's plate."

So, just like the balk discussion, do we tell the pitcher "son you need to come to a good set/stop" or do we call a balk???????

Remember , the coaches expect Consistancy not only in the Strike Zone but the rule interpretations also.

You have to decide what you need to do!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BretMan (Post 871328)

Not according to the NFHS 2013 Points of Emphasis.

Where? I didn't see that in the 2013 POEs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 871533)

Where? I didn't see that in the 2013 POEs.

It's in the NFHS Power Point presentation for 2013. Someone already posted the link above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jicecone (Post 871463)

No, the hybrid stance in the picture is illegal because, the entire pivot foot is in contact with and directly in front of the rubber.

Then just about every set stance is illegal.

FED has jumped the shark on this.

F1’s feet determine his pitching position. He must take his signs with his P foot in contact.

When F1 takes his signs with his NP foot on or behind a line extending through the leading edge of the pitcher’s plate, he must use the windup, and all proscriptions for that position apply.

When F1 takes his signs with his NP foot in front of a line extending though the leading edge of the pitcher’s plate, he must use the set/stretch, and all proscriptions for that position apply.

Am I missing something regarding the OP?

Here is what the Fed powerpoint says about the set position:

The set is the other legal pitching position. For the set position, a pitcher’s entire non-pivot foot must be in front of a line extending through the front edge of the pitcher’s plate and the entire pivot foot must be in contact with or in front of the pitching plate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt (Post 871559)

Then just about every set stance is illegal.

FED has jumped the shark on this.

Maybe however, I think the point that NFHS is trying to get across here is, if you stand in a "Hybrid" position, you better come set and to a "complete and discernable stop", or it is an llegal pitch. Runners on base balk, no runners, Ball.

Maven is not entirely wrong when he speaks about having an "eagle eye" entirely on the pivot foot. It more about where the Non-pivot foot is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by john5396 (Post 871580)

The set is the other legal pitching position. For the set position, a pitcher’s entire non-pivot foot must be in front of a line extending through the front edge of the pitcher’s plate and the entire pivot foot must be in contact with or in front of the pitching plate.

That's not what the rule says, and is physically impossible.

What's the "entire pivot foot"? Top, bottom, and sides? I don't care how he touches the rubber: I care whether he's in the set or windup. If he's in the set, then I'm not letting him windup.

It's not that difficult, and trying to micromanage where F1 puts his foot is the wrong approach, IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven (Post 871603)

+10,000

MTD, Sr.