Hybrid Pitching Stance

[maven]

So here is the hybrid stance:



As has already been pointed out, FED wants to eliminate this stance on the grounds that it meets the definition of neither legal stance.

It is not a windup, since the free foot is not on or behind a line through the front of the rubber.

It is not a set, since the pivot is not completely in contact with the rubber (the toes hanging off the front are illegal). Yes, the rule is written poorly, but no more poorly than OBR or NCAA.

IMHO, a pitcher gets more advantage from being allowed to windup from this stance than if he sets. THAT (the hybrid windup) I will ball/balk every time.

I don't see that he gets much advantage from using this stance as his set. Provided he complies with the rest of the rules concerning pitching from the set, having toes hanging off is no big deal.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by maven

I don't see that he gets much advantage from using this stance as his set. Provided he complies with the rest of the rules concerning pitching from the set, having toes hanging off is no big deal.

And some hybrid variations have the pivot foot more sideways (more in contact) and other variations have pivot more pointing towards HP (less in contact).

If F1 used this stance as his normal set position (and it had no resemblance to his wind-up position), one could balk him for not having his entire pivot foot in contact, I wouldn't.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by bluehair

And some hybrid variations have the pivot foot more sideways (more in contact) and other variations have pivot more pointing towards HP (less in contact).

If F1 used this stance as his normal set position (and it had no resemblance to his wind-up position), one could balk him for not having his entire pivot foot in contact, I wouldn't.

You do what you want, but what you're not doing is enforcing the rules if you let this go as pictured.

One advantage to using this as the set for a RHP is it makes it easier to turn before the stretch to look at the runner and makes it that much less of a turn/jump stop - esp if a runner thinks it's a windup.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by maven

Yes, the rule is written poorly, but no more poorly than OBR or NCAA.

This is one of the few areas where I think the NFHS rule is better than in OBR.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I see a legal set position, followed by a wind-up.

Which is exactly what you can't do.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Welpe

This is one of the few areas where I think the NFHS rule is better than in OBR.

Fed needed to make the non-pivot foot specification because you can't throw to a base without disengaging in the wind-up. In OBR, you can throw to a base without disengaging so there was no need to require the non-pivot foot at/behind the rubber in wind-up.

Of my knowledge neither OBR nor Fed had an problem with a throw from wind-up situation. Fed had the potential of a problem with this stupid hybrid stance and killed that potential by POE'ing the rule and making us ball it with no runners on (overkill IMO-just like balling an aborted wind-up). But that is how Fed works, they seem to dumb down the rules to the lowest common denominator of umpire intelligence.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I see a legal set position, followed by a wind-up.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Which is exactly what you can't do.

What can't I do? Do I have to balk it for a non-legal initial position (your way)? Or is OK to balk it for going from a legal set to a wind-up (my way)...
...either way we've got a balk.

In your way, you would balk F1 in the foot print above when he was staying in the set position/delivery. Easy to say in cyperspace, probably tougher to do on the ballfield. Good luck with that.

[bluehair]

Fed 6-3...and with his entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher's plate.

State intrepretation liberties aside, is this entire pivot foot in contact with or in front of the rubber? Absolutely. Part in contact with, part directly in front of the rubber.

The rule does not say...and with his entire foot in contact with or with his entire foot directly in front of the pitcher's plate.

See the difference? Probably not.

AND IT IS THE NON-PIVOT FOOT THAT IS THE ISSUE IN THE HYBRID STANCE.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

What can't I do? Do I have to balk it for a non-legal initial position (your way)? Or is OK to balk it for going from a legal set to a wind-up (my way)...
...either way we've got a balk.

In your way, you would balk F1 in the foot print above when he was staying in the set position/delivery. Easy to say in cyperspace, probably tougher to do on the ballfield. Good luck with that.

Wow. Read much? BTW - I don't have a "way".

Last time I ever agree with you...

[maven]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Fed 6-3...and with his entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher's plate.

State intrepretation liberties aside, is this entire pivot foot in contact with or in front of the rubber? Absolutely. Part in contact with, part directly in front of the rubber.

I used to agree with you. Then my state (following FED) told me I was wrong. :shrug:

Like dash, I have no objection to doing it their way.

[lawump]

I stand by my prior stated (in this thread) views on this POE...but I will call it. As Chief Justice Roberts famously implied: we umpires enforce the rules, we don't make them!

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Fed 6-3...and with his entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher's plate.

State intrepretation liberties aside, is this entire pivot foot in contact with or in front of the rubber? Absolutely. Part in contact with, part directly in front of the rubber.

The rule does not say...and with his entire foot in contact with or with his entire foot directly in front of the pitcher's plate.

See the difference? Probably not.

AND IT IS THE NON-PIVOT FOOT THAT IS THE ISSUE IN THE HYBRID STANCE.

Sounds like FED wants one stance, one way, every time.........even with no runners on base. Classic wind position, classic set position every time. With runners on base, this stance has always been a balk in FED from either the wind or set position. I don't see the big deal with enforcing it in the first place. The only thing I would do different is cut the kids at the lover skill levels some slack. They don't have any idea what is right or wrong to begin with.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

The only thing I would do different is cut the kids at the lover skill levels some slack. They don't have any idea what is right or wrong to begin with.

Nor do their coaches.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Nor do their coaches.

And that is the biggest reason right there. How can either one learn if no one teaches them.

[UMP45]

Guys we can piss and moan about how stupid this rule is and I've heard of one local booking agent saying he wasn't making his umpires call it. Guys we have no choice. We HAVE to call it! By not calling it the rule will not have a chance of being reversed. Remember it's the coaches that get rules changed. If we want this changed we need to call the hell out of this and maybe some coaches will get pissed enough to get it changed!