Just curious, when do you guys call it? Immediately or wait for first movement?
Our board says to wait for first movement to give the pitcher a chance to disengage (correct his mistake). I think it needs to be called when he intentionally engages the rubber. As per rule 6.1. But I will call it as they have requested.

Allan

He may be in a legal set position (free foot directly in front of the rubber). If so, he has done nothing wrong yet. When he breaks the set position rules (no discernable stop), he has made an illegal pitch.

I say you're correct, it's on the intentional engagement when this and all other pitching rules apply. Seems like waiting is just setting the trap for a sh*tstorm.

Our association recommending using preventative officiating here, especially early in the season when folks aren't used to it yet. Stop him early, even in warmups if you can (especially at the sub-varsity level - they shouldn't need a warning at varsity).

Also, seems like the spirit of the rule is to make it clear for the runners/offense which position the pitcher is in. If you wait for first movement, the runner may not be able to get a leadoff that he could if the pitcher would choose one of the two legal positions.

The free foot does not have to be directly in front of the rubber. It can be anywhere as long as no part of the foot is on or behind a line extending through the front edge of the rubber.

It was a rule change / POE in NCAA a few years ago (5 maybe?) Took pitchers < 1 month to adjust.

(Note that in NCAA, the free foot must be entirely in front of the pivot foot to be in the set; in FED it's a set if the foot is in front of the rubber.)

OK, my mistake. I thought you had a problem with the free foot. But I was talking about a hybrid possible being a legal set position.

What in your hybrid variation makes it not a legal set position?
His pivot foot ? cite please.
His free foot ? cite please

The hybrid stance mentioned violates the requirements because one foot might meet the requirements but the other won't.

It's not a set because the pivot foot is not "with his entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher's plate." (6-1-3). It's not a windup 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." (6-1-2).

If the non-pivot is in front, then the pivot has to be entirely in contact, not just astride or touching.

Precisely. Thank you.

Are you hung up on the word "entire pivot foot in contact"? Where I've seen this done, F1 has his pivot foot at angles between almost pointing towards the plate (a little of his foot overlapping in front of and behind the rubber) and 90 degrees to HP (entire bottom of pivot in contact). If you'd call the former an illegal set position, you are free to OOO that as you like, but in the the latter case (near 90 degrees to HP) F1's foot is entirely in contact and in a legal set position.

In every case I've seen, I don't see an iilegal set (think it would be OOO to do so), I see a legal set position, followed by a wind-up.

No, I'm not "hung up" on anything. That's the clear and essential part of the rule. I think you're WAY overthinking it. Just look at the pics in the NFHS preseason guide. "Entire" isn't hard or OOO - it's the rule.

And how do you have a legal set and then go into a windup? This is definitional.

Our state interpreter specifically said pitching from the set with the pivot foot perpendicular to the rubber is illegal. It must be parallel. I do not agree it is OOO to enforce this, especially if the pitcher's feet leave any doubt as to which position he is in because, unlike other codes, the pitcher cannot throw or feint to a base from the windup. The runner has an absolute right to know if the pitcher is in the windup or set, and it could have a big effect on a runner's lead (particularly R3).

I don't care if F1's pivot foot is partially off the side of the rubber (also illegal from the set), because most of the mounds have a crater in front of the rubber and F1 is just trying to pitch without breaking his ankle. That would be OOO, in my opinion. If a coach wants me to enforce this (it hasn't happened yet), I will probably require that the mound be fixed first.

1. Then you agree that F1 can have his entire pivot foot in contact with the rubber (initial set position) in a variation of this hybrid stance, thanks.
2. If you want to use the word "entire" literally, it can never be achieved, unless the pitching plate is made of jello. But now I nit pick, lets get back to your nit pick.
3. If F1 intends to be in the set position (pivot foot on top of the rubber). Are you going to balk him because his big toe was on the dirt in front of the rubber? Or the back of his foot wasn't in contact? If yes, I think that's OOO. Just like this hybrid initial position. I'll no longer argue about this nit-picking.

Lost in all this nit picking over the partially literal definition of the word "entire", is my opinion why the Fed made this a POE. In Fed (unlike OBR) F1 can not throw to a base from the initial wind-up position without disengaging first, but can from the initial set position. If F1 muddies up the initial position by having his pivot foot entirely in contact and free foot entirely in front of the rubber (a legal initial set position), how can you balk him for throwing to 3B without disengaging? If an umpire continues to allow F1 to wind-up from this hybrid, he is opening up the possiblility (though I've never seen/heard of it done) that F1 breaks off a throw to 3B without disengaging and having the DHC say this isn't a balk because F1 was in a legal set position.

If the entire pivot is in contact as you state in 1] then it was never a hybrid to begin with. The rest of that is absurd to the point of requiring no further reply. My congratulations on your internet message board debate win - I hear it's a wonderful trophy.

Said I hasn't going to argue this anymore, but have you not seen a variation of this hybrid stance where F1's pivot foot is not point towards HP, and is 90+% is in contact with the rubber? I have...many times that is what I see.
And your state interpreter is probably making this interp in the context of this hybrid stance issue and takes away Lou "the toe" Groza's advantage, who could have his pivot foot pointing towards HP and be entirely in contact.
Exactly...that's why I think Fed made this a POE...to prevent F1 from taking advantage of a set position look-a-like. The issue isn't the pivot location (nit picking), its the free foot location.

A trophy? I won a trophy, awesome! I've got a place for it in my virtual trophy case between the Mario Brothers and Packman trophies.