The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack (5) Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4
Send a message via AIM to AllanA
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
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllanA View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllanA View Post
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
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluehair View Post
He may be in a legal set position (free foot directly in front of the rubber).
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawump View Post
they have made clear that what has been allowed (if not by rule, by fact) without incident for GOD knows how long in pro ball, NCAA and, even, FED will now be a balk or ball in FED.
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.)
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
The "hybrid" stance I am familiar with has F1 with his pivot foot across (perpendicular to) the rubber and his free foot in front of, and often past the side edge of, the rubber. This is not legal.
What in your hybrid variation makes it not a legal set position?
His pivot foot ? cite please.
His free foot ? cite please
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluehair View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrounge View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrounge View Post
then the pivot has to be entirely in contact, not just astride or touching.
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.

Last edited by bluehair; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:25am.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluehair View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluehair View Post

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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrounge View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluehair View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
Our state interpreter specifically said pitching from the set with the pivot foot perpendicular to the rubber is illegal. It must be parallel.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock View Post
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).
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.

Last edited by bluehair; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:35pm.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North, TX
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrounge View Post
My congratulations on your internet message board debate win - I hear it's a wonderful trophy.
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.

Last edited by bluehair; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:15pm.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/94079-hybrid-pitching-stance.html
Posted By For Type Date
Point of emphasis - Forums This thread Refback Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:29pm
Point of emphasis - Forums This thread Refback Wed Mar 06, 2013 08:46pm
Point of emphasis - Forums This thread Refback Wed Mar 06, 2013 06:27pm
Point of emphasis - Forums This thread Refback Wed Mar 06, 2013 05:39pm
Point of emphasis - Forums This thread Refback Wed Mar 06, 2013 05:12pm

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Davis stance/K3C DonInKansas Baseball 24 Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:57pm
Stance mike1989 Baseball 20 Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:08pm
GD Stance LLPA13UmpDan Baseball 42 Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:15pm
Gorilla Stance blueump Baseball 49 Thu Apr 14, 2005 07:56am
Tim McClelland- New Stance LeftyRef Baseball 14 Tue Apr 12, 2005 08:55am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1