NFHS Rules: Pitcher's Stances.
 

Today, MTD, Jr., and I received our OhioHSAA Baseball Packet which included the NFHS/Referee Preseason Guide.

There was an article in the Guide about the Pitcher's Stance. The Guide said that over the last few years pitchers have been moving to a Hybrid Stance in attempt to deceive the Runner(s). I know what the NFHS Baseball Rules say regarding the Pitcher's Stance with respect to the Windup and the Set positions. But just what does a Hybrid Stance look like? If anybody can describe one one looks like I would appreciate it. Thanks.

MTD, Sr.

Some hybrid stances will have the pitcher (typically a RHP) cheating from the set position with his front foot more at the "45" than in front of the rubber.

That's legal, and not what they are talking about.

By rule, the windup must have both feet on or in back of a line through the front of the rubber. If the non-pivot foot is entirely in front of that line, then it's a set position.

Pitchers were standing with the free foot in front of that line and then winding up.

College went to a similar rule and POE a few years ago (excpet the free foot must be entierly in front of a line through the farthest forward porion of the pivot foot)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question. (OP)

Many MLB pitchers use a "hybrid" stance, and it's allowed at that level with no runners on base. Cliff Lee is notorious. Here's his windup position:

http://i50.tinypic.com/16c6ow6.png

Here's what I found in OBR regarding the Set Position:

The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands facing the batter with his pivot foot in contact with, and his other foot in front of, the pitcher’s plate, holding the ball in both hands in front of his body and coming to a complete stop.


Bob, maybe I should've used the term "the set" rather than "the stretch" or do we still disagree on what is or is not legal?

Yes -- this is the "hybrid" position. Might be confusing to runners.

The free foot does not need to be *directly* in front of the rubber (that is, within the edges of the rubber extended). JUst in front of a line throught the front of the rubber extended.

The problem with this statement is not your use of the term 'set', but rather your suggestion that the stance you describe is somehow illegal and so cheating. It is a legal version of the set to stand diagonally.

The "hybrid" stance is in one sense a misnomer, since every stance is either the set or the windup. The problem with the "hybrid" is that the position of the feet determine it as a version of the set, but the pitcher's motion is a windup.

Permitting that confers a distinct advantage on F1, especially under FED rules where he cannot legally step and throw to a base from the windup position. The "hybrid" stance is a set, but if he's allowed to wind up he gets a better pitch out of it.

If I see F1 doing this, I try to nip it in the bud in the first inning (or first inning of relief). My state wants this addressed, but I understand that others follow MLB in not caring. It's really only an advantage where F1 would be pitching from the windup with runners on base, for instance R3 only.

I'm not disagreeing, but maybe I'm doing a poor job of explaining what I'm trying to say...so if the pitcher's free foot in the set is outside the confines of the rubber, am I correct in saying that is illegal? Confines of the rubber = both ends of the rubber 1b side & 3b side extending downward are the limits of F1's free foot?

No.

Okay, so the rule is written incorrectly then?

No...what makes this illegal is what the pitcher does in the motion, not for the stance itself.

Having the free foot to the side, but in front of the imaginary line--if he does a windup, it's illegal.

No. To my reading, of course.

I think you are inserting the word "directly" into the rule where it doesn't exist.

Okay, then that makes sense. All the rule reads is "in front" Gotcha

"There was an article in the Guide about the Pitcher's Stance. The Guide said that over the last few years pitchers have been moving to a Hybrid Stance in attempt to deceive the Runner(s"

They are not doing it to deceive the runners. They are doing it to emulate the pros. It does not deceive a runner in the pros and in fact it should not deceive a runner in any code if a pitcher winds up from what looks like the set. He should be off and running if appropriate.

It's allowed at that level with or without runners on base. Of course, the windup from that position would only be used with the appropriate runner situation. Why it's allowed is up for debate. I say current OBR wording has no free foot position restriction. Wendlestedt says that while it's not legal (which I disagree with) there is no advantage gained by the pitcher and in fact an advantage for the runner so don't penalize it.

In the future, if someone wanted to sharpshoot the current OBR wording it might present a problem. This last season a pitcher got away with a quick pitch while standing sideways and he did not come set or windup, he just rared away and threw. Pissed off the batter but no call.

Every so often I will get a pitcher with their non-pivot a little in front of the rubber. I just let them know is it a balk (NFHS), and go about my business. This way they know it is a balk, and they don't get balked for the infraction later in the season.

I always get a little irritated when a coach or player says, "The umpire in the last game let us do it." True or not, I still don't what to hear it.

I haven't read an OBR rule book in a while, but I don't think this stance is exactly covered in it.

Sometimes that works, but for me I just balk it. In my experience kids don't learn anything from warnings.

Huh? What do you mean you "go about my business"? Are you not calling it a balk when you see it? :confused:

Ugh
 

Fed goes OOO again IMO.

Baseball is played by many players at different age levels, and many different skill levels. No, I'm not a coach, and I don't subscribe to the mainstream theorists that believe doing so is a mortal sin. I've worked with some of the best high school umpires, and they would think me an idiot to enforce it down to the very miniscule teeniest wording of the rule.

I played the game for many years at some high levels, so I believe in passing on pertinent information when possible. The ball field is like a classroom for me. I'm not sending everyone to the Principal's office. Just the way I feel about things.

I have definately seen this evolution of pitching form over the years. Here in MT, alot of the kids that come down from Canada use this "hybrid" pitching motion. They stand at a 45, with their pivot foot essentially already parallel with the rubber...take a quick step with the non pivot foot, kick and go. We don't balk them here (at least not with wnyone I have worked with) and I see no advantage for them nor disadvantage for the runner.

I guess someone would have to explain the disadvantage? Once they step with the non pivot they must go home...

The advantage occurs with runners on. The position appears to be (and is in fact by rule) the set, which under FED rules permits F1 to step and throw to a base. That keeps the runner closer to the base.

When F1 is permitted to wind up from that position, he gets a better pitch out of it. That's the advantage.

If he's in the hybrid position and steps and throws to a base, will you balk him? He's legally in the set!

Yes I balk him in that instance...If runners are on, I intrepret the hybrid as a set...if runners are not on I intrepret the hybrid as a windup.

Wait a minute. If you interpret the hybrid as a set when runners are on, why would you balk him if he then steps and throws to a base?

So I went to lunch and as I was driving back eating my chicken soft taco I thought to myself..when I get back someone is going to say "wait a minute"...I got ahead of myself in my response.

If he is in Hybrid, runners on, I assume he is in set position and treat it as such...and if no one is on, I assume windup and treat is as such. However...

In thinking about this myself, if I assume he is in the set with runners on, but he lifts his non-pivot foot to start the wind-up would I balk him? or just let him go because the baserunner should steal as soon as he lifts the non-pivot anyway?

So I thouhgt about it further and I am going to have to watch this more this summer. It seems to me that the kids that use the hybrid (45 degree angle) only do so in the windup and use a more 90 degree with runners on base..but I will definately be interested to check this out this summer.

99% of the time (now), there's no confusion. But some coaches are (or will be) teaching the pitcher to set up in this "hybrid" manner to confuse the runner and shorten the lead or get an out.

the rule change is designed to nip it in the bud.

(and also has to do with LCD umpiring, imo).

What rule change in FED. I think it's been in the books for a while. The thing that has changed has been the impetus on enforcement in some areas. I'm not aware of coaches in my area rule cognizant enough to abuse or be abused by pushing the limit on this rule. In any case in other than OBR, if the umps or coaches are confused the rule is easily used. In OBR I do see some sharpshooting possible.

Yes, I misspoke. Thank you for the correction.

Illegal Hybrid Stance

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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).