NFHS Rules: Pitcher's Stances.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by maven

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.

No matter what you think, this is the present rule. Remember, FED rule changes are brought about by coaches not umpires. Coaches are the ones complaining about where F1 puts his feet. They think F1 is getting an unfair advantage by this hybrid stance.

Personally, I feel that the hybrid stance is silly and F1's should be trained that:

Windup = shoulders parallel to home plate
Set = shoulder perpendicular to home plate

[maven]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

No matter what you think, this is the present rule. Remember, FED rule changes are brought about by coaches not umpires. Coaches are the ones complaining about where F1 puts his feet. They think F1 is getting an unfair advantage by this hybrid stance.

Personally, I feel that the hybrid stance is silly and F1's should be trained that:

Windup = shoulders parallel to home plate
Set = shoulder perpendicular to home plate

Oy.

1. No, it's not the rule, it's an interpretation by NC.

2. The "hybrid stance" is a misnomer (as I posted back in post #8). The problem is that the stance dictates that F1 is in the set, yet umpires let him windup. It's not a different kind of stance, it's just a set.

3. There's no problem with how stances are defined. Why change the definition? There's no problem interpreting what the "set" is. Why change the interpretation? The problem is with the enforcement, and the solution needs to address the problem: don't let pitchers in the set windup. Easy!

[Steven Tyler]

Sounds like somebody is trying to re-invent the wheel...................again..........

[bluehair]

In Fed rules when you are in the windup position, you have to disengage before you throw to an occupied base (say 3B). In the set, you do not need to disengage before throwing. If F1 is in this illegal hybrid wind-up postion (the legal set position) and then he throws directly to 3B without disengaging, how can you balk him if he legally made a throw to an occupied base from the set position.

I think this is the reason for the Fed POE. Because Fed has this funky rule difference, if umpires do not enforce it, HS F1 can essentially have the OBR balk rule (the option to throw to a base from this "hybrid" wind-up position).