NFHS Rules: Pitcher's Stances.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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)

[johnnyg08]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question. (OP)

[maven]

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:

[johnnyg08]

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by maven

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:

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

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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?

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.

[maven]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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.

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.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by maven

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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?

No.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No.

Okay, so the rule is written incorrectly then?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Okay, so the rule is written incorrectly then?

No. To my reading, of course.

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

[johnnyg08]

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

[umpjim]

"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.