NFHS Rules: Pitcher's Stances.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by maven

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.

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!!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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.

[rcaverly]

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?

[john5396]

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.

[maven]

Originally Posted by john5396

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

+10,000


MTD, Sr.

[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!

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Matt

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.